[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 87 (Monday, July 10, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H5683-H5718]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 538 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 4461.
{time} 1602
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4461) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other
purposes, with Mr. Nussle in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole House rose on Thursday,
June 29, 2000, the bill was open for amendment from page 57, line 12,
to page 58, line 8.
Are there further amendments to that portion of the bill?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a series of discussions with the
distinguished gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen).
Mr. Chairman, as we know, the Senate bill provides direct payments to
dairy farmers estimated at $443 million to offset the record low prices
we have seen for much of the past year.
I would simply ask the chairman if he would be willing to work with
me to ensure that direct payments for dairy farmers are included in the
bill when it emerges from conference.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to work with the
gentleman from Wisconsin. I find that we agree more often than not on
the specifics of dairy policy, and would point to the last 2 years of
economic assistance payments we have jointly inserted into the
agriculture appropriations conference report as proof.
Accordingly, I will be pleased to carry out our tradition of working
together on dairy producer assistance, when and if we ever get to
conference.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
Let me turn to another subject, that of ultrafiltered milk. It seems
there is always some new issue popping up in the dairy area. There are
growing fears about the damaging impact on domestic dairy producers
from imports of dry ultrafiltered or UF milk.
Ultrafiltration is an important technology widely used in cheese
plants for about 15 years to remove water, lactose, and minerals and
allow manufacturers to manipulate the ingredients in cheese to arrive
at the desired finished product.
The use of liquid UF milk from another location has been approved by
FDA on a case-by-case basis, but there is another problem. The problem
is the threat of unlimited imports of dry UF milk from places like New
Zealand following a petition to FDA earlier this year by the National
Cheese Institute to change the standards of identity for cheese.
I understand that there are no quotas or tariffs on this product,
which is currently used in bakery mixes, ice cream, and other products
that do not have the strict standards of identity that cheese has.
There have also been newspaper reports suggesting that dry UF milk is
already being imported for use in American cheese plants, in violation
of FDA regulations.
We need to know what the facts are so we can develop an appropriate
response. At a minimum, we need to understand first how much UF milk is
coming into the country and what it is used for. I would ask the
chairman of the subcommittee if he would be willing to work with us to
get answers to those questions through the GAO and other sources.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I, too, have an interest in ultrafiltered
milk. I believe it is prudent to have empirical facts in order to
understand the specifics of a somewhat muddled portion of the dairy
production and cheese-making process.
I would offer to the gentleman that we will jointly direct either the
GAO or the committee S&I staff to conduct a factual investigation into
how much UF milk is produced in this country and how much is being
imported and what it is used for. At that time, and with the facts on
our side, I am confident that we will be able to address the issue in
an intelligent and productive manner.
Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman.
Now I would like to turn to another subject, Mr. Chairman. That is
the Dairy Export Incentive Program.
I am concerned that the USDA is not being aggressive enough in
encouraging dairy exports through the Dairy Export Incentive Program,
or DEIP, which allows us to compete in world markets with highly
subsidized exports in the European Union.
About 10 percent of DEIP contracts are apparently canceled, I
understand due mainly to price undercutting by our competitors. For
whatever the reason, we apparently have about 40,000 metric tons of
canceled nonfat dry milk contracts dating back to June of 1995. This
canceled tonnage can be reprogrammed for export by allowing exporters
to rebid for them, but the Foreign Agricultural Service appears
reluctant to do that, perhaps fearing that it may be taken to the WTO
court by the European Union.
Mr. Chairman, as we know, DEIP saves money. It is cheaper to export
surplus nonfat dry milk than it is for USDA to buy it and store it.
Removing this product from the domestic market would have a beneficial
impact on dairy prices. As such, again, I would ask the chair of the
subcommittee to help me convince USDA to propose a solution to resolve
the problem by the time we have reached conference on this bill, one
that might include establishing a procedure for automatic rebidding of
canceled tonnage.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, again, I would be pleased to work with the
gentleman to address his concerns, as they are shared by myself and
many others. It seems the administration has been entirely too willing
to roll over to our competitors without looking to the interests of
America's farmers and ranchers first, and anything we can do to reverse
the trend will be a step forward.
Mr. OBEY. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise the question of cranberries.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was allowed to proceed for 4
additional minutes.)
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, with respect to that product, cranberry
growers, as we know, like all farmers today, it seems they are in dire
straits due to overproduction, massive overproduction and lower prices.
It costs about $35 per barrel to produce cranberries. Some growers in
my district are getting as little as $9 or $10 a barrel for their crop.
The USDA recently announced its support for industry-proposed volume
controls that are desperately needed to get a handle on overproduction.
That is part of the solution, but will add to the farm income problems
those cranberry growers are facing, so it seems to me we have to look
for more things that can be done.
Another part of the solution might be for USDA to purchase surplus
products. USDA has been very responsive so far looking for
opportunities to purchase surplus product, but much more needs to be
done if we are to restore balance to supply and demand.
[[Page H5684]]
As we know, cranberries are among the specialty crops eligible for
purchase by the Secretary, with $200 million provided from the
recently-passed crop insurance bill.
Would the chairman work with me to urge USDA to aggressively use the
authority it has to purchase surplus cranberry products in a way that
will make a significant difference to the industry?
Mr. SKEEN. If the gentleman will yield further, I will be glad to
work with the gentleman towards that end.
Mr. OBEY. I would also appreciate it if the chairman would also help
us to explore the possibility of helping growers through the current
difficult times with direct payments.
The Cranberry Industry estimates that $20 million will improve income
by about $3 to $4 per barrel for each grower. This bill already
includes $100 million direct assistance to apple and potato growers. We
have helped pork farmers, dairy farmers, wheat, corn, cotton, rice,
oilseeds, and many others.
Would the chairman of the subcommittee be willing to work with me to
ensure that America's cranberry growers receive the same kind of
consideration in this respect that many other farmers have received?
Mr. SKEEN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, again, I would be
very happy to work with the gentleman, as I, too, believe that
specialty crops do not receive the support and attention that they
deserve. Cranberries would definitely fall into that category.
Mr. OBEY. I thank the chairman, and I appreciate his consideration.
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, recently I introduced H.R. 4652, the Quality Cheese Act
of 2000. This bipartisan bill would prohibit the FDA from allowing the
use of dry ultrafiltered milk in the making of natural cheese.
My reason for introducing the bill was simple. Dry ultrafiltered
milk, which is a milk derivative, can come in the United States
virtually duty-free. It can take the place of domestically produced
milk in cheese vats and the consumer cannot tell the difference. Using
imported dry ultrafiltered milk would also undercut our domestic dairy
farmers' market for their milk. My Wisconsin dairy farmers are already
receiving the lowest price for their milk in over 20 years. We cannot
allow their market to be further eroded.
There have been reports in farm publications that there are large
volumes of dry ultrafiltered milk currently being imported. That is
perfectly legal, but we do not know what the dry ultrafiltered milk is
being used for. If this dry ultrafiltered milk is being used in natural
cheese-making, it is being used illegally, to the detriment of
consumers and the dairy farmers I represent.
It is my hope that the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the
distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies of the
Committee on Appropriations, will work with myself and the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to find an answer to this important question.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. BALDWIN. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, as the gentlewoman knows, I also have an
interest in ultrafiltered milk, as I recently discussed with the
gentlewoman's colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). I
believe it is wise to understand the specifics of a somewhat muddled
segment of the dairy production and cheese-making production.
Accordingly, we have to agree to jointly direct either the GAO or the
subcommittee's S&I staff to conduct a factual investigation into how
much UF milk is produced in this country and how much is being imported
and what is it used for, and at that time, with the facts on our side,
I am confident that we will be able to address the issue in an
intelligent and productive manner.
I appreciate the gentlewoman's concerns, and look forward to working
with her on behalf of the Nation's dairy industry.
Ms. BALDWIN. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Chairman.
Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 38 offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio:
Page 58, line 4, insert after the colon the following:
``Provided further, That $3,000,000 may be for activities
carried out pursuant to section 512 of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to new animal drugs, in
addition to the amounts otherwise available under this
heading for such activities:''.
{time} 1615
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, this amendment concerns antibiotic
resistance from the use of antibiotics in livestock.
I would like to start with a story. Imagine your 7-year-old daughter
is very sick from food poisoning. You take her to the hospital and
antibiotics do not help. In a week, she dies a painful death. The
autopsy shows that her body is riddled with E. coli bacteria which ate
away at her organs from her brain down. This is a true story, and it
happened to a family in northeast Ohio 2 years ago.
We thought we were winning the war against infectious diseases. With
the introduction of antibiotics in the 1940s, humans gained an
overwhelming advantage in the fight against bacteria that cause
infectious diseases, but the war is not over.
Mr. Chairman, 2 weeks ago, the World Health Organization issued a
ringing warning against antibiotic resistance. Around the world,
microbes are mutating at an alarming rate into the new strains that
fail to respond to drugs.
Dr. Marcos Esponal of the World Health Organization said, ``we
already have lost some of the current good antibiotics, streptomycin
for TB; it's almost lost. Chloroquin for malaria, it's lost;
penicillin, nobody uses it now; if we keep the same pace, we will be
losing other potent and powerful drugs. So a window of opportunity is
closing, and I would say if we don't act now, in 5 to 10 years, we will
have a major crisis''; words from the World Health Organization.
We need to develop, Mr. Chairman, new antibiotics but it is too soon
obviously to give up on the ones we have. By using antibiotics and
antimicrobials more wisely and more sparingly, we can slow down
antibiotic resistance.
We need to change the way drugs are given to people to be sure, but
we also need to look at the way drugs are given to animals. According
to the WHO, 50 percent of all antibiotics are used in agriculture, both
for animals and for plants. In the U.S., livestock producers use drugs
to treat sick herds and flocks legitimately. They also feed a steady
diet of antibiotics for healthy livestock so they will gain weight more
quickly and be ready for market sooner.
Many of these drugs are the same ones used to treat infections in
people, including tetracycline. Prolonged exposure to antibiotics in
farm animals provide a breeding ground science tells us for resistance
strains of E. coli, salmonella and other bacteria harmful to humans.
When transferred to people through food, it can cause dangerous
infections.
Last week, an interagency task force issued a draft Public Health
Action Plan to combat antimicrobial resistance. The plan provides a
blueprint for specific, coordinated Federal actions. A top priority
action item in the draft plan highlights work already underway at the
Food and Drug Administration's Center for Veterinary Medicine.
In December of 1998, the FDA issued a proposed framework for
evaluating and regulating new animal drugs in light of their
contribution to antibiotic resistance in humans. The agency proposes to
evaluate the drugs on the basis of their importance in human medicine
and the potential exposure of humans to resistant bacteria that come
from animals.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would direct $3 million toward the
Center for Veterinary Medicine's work on antibiotic resistance related
to animal drugs. CVM Director Sundloff has stated that antibiotic
resistance is the Center's top priority. However, the framework
document states the agency
[[Page H5685]]
will look first at approvals for new animal drugs and will look at
drugs already in use in animals as time and resources permit.
We think an additional $3 million would give a significant boost to
the ability of the Center for Veterinary Medicine to move forward on
antibiotic resistance. Our amendment directs FDA to shift these funds
from within the agency, while leaving the decision on the sources of
the offset to the agency itself.
Please note the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Chairman, has
recommended a $53 million budget increase for FDA. Given this increase,
we believe the agency can free up $3 million of that increase for its
work on antibiotic resistance without harming other programs.
Mr. Chairman, I ask for his support, and ask for support of Members
of the House for this amendment. The lives of our young children and
our elderly parents, the people most vulnerable to food-borne illness,
may be at stake.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, it provides an additional $3 million for a particular
FDA activity, presumably to be funded at the expense of other FDA
priorities.
I understand the forthright interest of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Brown) in this situation and what the gentleman wants to do. The
committee has fully funded the President's fiscal year 2001 budget
request for new animal drug review, as can be seen on page 60 of the
committee report on this bill.
The President requested $62,761,000 for the animal drugs and feeds
program, an increase of $14,048,000 over fiscal year 2000. The
committee fully funded the administration's request, which is a
generous 22 percent increase.
Since the request was fully funded, I oppose the amendment and urge
my colleagues to do the same. Please vote no on the amendment.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and rise to
support the Brown amendment to increase the antibiotic resistance
funding by $3 million. Earlier this month, the World Health
Organization issued a strong warning against antibiotic resistance.
If I may quote from the WHO, they said, ``the world may only have a
decade or two to make optimal use of many of the medicines presently
available to stop infectious diseases. We are literally in a race
against time to bring levels of infectious disease down worldwide
before the disease wears the drugs down first''; that is by Mr. David
Heymann, executive director of the World Health Organization's
communicable disease program.
Mr. Chairman, while many factors contribute to antibiotic resistance,
an important cause is the overuse of antibiotics in livestock, both for
treating disease and promoting faster growth. Many livestock receive a
steady diet of antibiotics that are used in human medicine, especially
tetracycline and penicillin.
Antibiotic-resistant microbes are then transferred from animals to
humans primarily in food, causing infection from salmonella and E. coli
that are difficult or impossible to treat.
Children and the elderly are most at risk for serious illness or
death. The World Health Organization recommends reducing antibiotic use
in animals to protect our own human health.
The Food and Drug Administration's Center for Veterinary Medicine,
CVM, is taking steps to reduce the problem of antibiotic resistance
from drug use in livestock. The agency's plan primarily addresses new
animal drugs and will address drugs currently in use when resources
permit.
That is where the Brown amendment comes in. This amendment would
increase funding for the Food and Drug Administration's Center for
Veterinary Medicine by $3 million for activities related to antibiotic
resistance. Since the committee is recommending that the FDA receive an
increase of $53 million, the Brown amendment would simply direct the
agency to allocate an additional $3 million from the $53 million for
this very important work.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues, both Democrats and
Republicans, to support the Brown amendment and this very important
program.
Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in support of the Brown amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring to the attention of the gentleman
from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) and the body that this certainly has
been described as a very serious issue in America today. I appreciate
the opposition of the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) to it
on the basis of the funding. We do not know exactly where the funding
is coming from, and I also understand that this is an issue that was
not brought to the attention of the committee or subcommittee prior to
today for increased funding.
I would like to let the body know that there is some funding in the
food safety initiative and the FDA has the jurisdiction, or the
responsibility, of looking at these kinds of issues and monitoring
this, and we are absolutely not doing a sufficient job. I think that we
do need some additional resources and efforts in this area.
I would encourage, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr.
Skeen) to try to work with us to see if we could not find some
additional funding as we move into conference, but I would like to
support the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
In addition, mammography user fees authorized by 42 U.S.C.
263(b) may be credited to this account, to remain available
until expended.
In addition, export certification user fees authorized by
21 U.S.C. 381, as amended, may be credited to this account,
to remain available until expended.
Buildings and Facilities
For plans, construction, repair, improvement, extension,
alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities of
or used by the Food and Drug Administration, where not
otherwise provided, $11,350,000, to remain available until
expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b).
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the
Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), including the
purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles; the rental of
space (to include multiple year leases) in the District of
Columbia and elsewhere; and not to exceed $25,000 for
employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109, $69,000,000, including not to
exceed $2,000 for official reception and representation
expenses: Provided, That for fiscal year 2001 and thereafter,
the Commission is authorized to charge reasonable fees to
attendees of Commission sponsored educational events and
symposia to cover the Commission's costs of providing those
events and symposia, and notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, said
fees shall be credited to this account, to be available
without further appropriation.
Farm Credit Administration
Limitation on Administrative Expenses
Not to exceed $36,800,000 (from assessments collected from
farm credit institutions and from the Federal Agricultural
Mortgage Corporation) shall be obligated during the current
fiscal year for administrative expenses as authorized under
12 U.S.C. 2249: Provided, That this limitation shall not
apply to expenses associated with receiverships.
TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 701. Within the unit limit of cost fixed by law,
appropriations and authorizations made for the Department of
Agriculture for the current fiscal year under this Act shall
be available for the purchase, in addition to those
specifically provided for, of not to exceed 389 passenger
motor vehicles, of which 385 shall be for replacement only,
and for the hire of such vehicles.
Sec. 702. Funds in this Act available to the Department of
Agriculture shall be available for uniforms or allowances
therefor as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902).
Sec. 703. Not less than $1,500,000 of the appropriations of
the Department of Agriculture in this Act for research and
service work authorized by sections 1 and 10 of the Act of
June 29, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 427, 427i; commonly known as the
Bankhead-Jones Act), subtitle A of title II and section 302
of the Act of August 14, 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq.), and
chapter 63 of title 31, United States Code, shall be
available for contracting in accordance with such Acts and
chapter.
Sec. 704. The Secretary may transfer funds provided under
this Act and other available unobligated balances of the
Department of Agriculture to the Working Capital Fund for the
acquisition of plant and capital equipment necessary for the
delivery of financial, administrative, and information
technology services: Provided, That none of the funds made
available by this Act or any other Act shall be transferred
to the Working Capital Fund without the prior approval of the
agency administrator.
Sec. 705. New obligational authority provided for the
following appropriation items in this Act shall remain
available until expended: Animal and Plant Health Inspection
[[Page H5686]]
Service, the contingency fund to meet emergency conditions,
fruit fly program, integrated systems acquisition project,
boll weevil program, up to 10 percent of the screwworm
program, and up to $2,000,000 for costs associated with
colocating regional offices; Food Safety and Inspection
Service, field automation and information management project;
funds appropriated for rental payments; Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service, funds for
competitive research grants (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)) and funds for
the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund; Farm Service
Agency, salaries and expenses funds made available to county
committees; Foreign Agricultural Service, middle-income
country training program and up to $2,000,000 of the Foreign
Agricultural Service appropriation solely for the purpose of
offsetting fluctuations in international currency exchange
rates, subject to documentation by the Foreign Agricultural
Service.
Sec. 706. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 707. Not to exceed $50,000 of the appropriations
available to the Department of Agriculture in this Act shall
be available to provide appropriate orientation and language
training pursuant to section 606C of the Act of August 28,
1954 (7 U.S.C. 1766b; commonly known as the Agricultural Act
of 1954).
Sec. 708. No funds appropriated by this Act may be used to
pay negotiated indirect cost rates on cooperative agreements
or similar arrangements between the United States Department
of Agriculture and nonprofit institutions in excess of 10
percent of the total direct cost of the agreement when the
purpose of such cooperative arrangements is to carry out
programs of mutual interest between the two parties. This
does not preclude appropriate payment of indirect costs on
grants and contracts with such institutions when such
indirect costs are computed on a similar basis for all
agencies for which appropriations are provided in this Act.
Sec. 709. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
commodities acquired by the Department in connection with the
Commodity Credit Corporation and section 32 price support
operations may be used, as authorized by law (15 U.S.C. 714c
and 7 U.S.C. 612c), to provide commodities to individuals in
cases of hardship as determined by the Secretary of
Agriculture.
Sec. 710. None of the funds in this Act shall be available
to restrict the authority of the Commodity Credit Corporation
to lease space for its own use or to lease space on behalf of
other agencies of the Department of Agriculture when such
space will be jointly occupied.
Sec. 711. None of the funds in this Act shall be available
to pay indirect costs charged against competitive
agricultural research, education, or extension grant awards
issued by the Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service that exceed 19 percent of total Federal
funds provided under each award: Provided, That
notwithstanding section 1462 of the National Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7
U.S.C. 3310), funds provided by this Act for grants awarded
competitively by the Cooperative State Research, Education,
and Extension Service shall be available to pay full
allowable indirect costs for each grant awarded under section
9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638).
Sec. 712. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
all loan levels provided in this Act shall be considered
estimates, not limitations.
Sec. 713. Appropriations to the Department of Agriculture
for the cost of direct and guaranteed loans made available in
the current fiscal year shall remain available until expended
to cover obligations made in the current fiscal year for the
following accounts: the rural development loan fund program
account; the rural telephone bank program account; the rural
electrification and telecommunications loans program account;
the rural housing insurance fund program account; and the
rural economic development loans program account.
Sec. 714. Such sums as may be necessary for the current
fiscal year pay raises for programs funded by this Act shall
be absorbed within the levels appropriated by this Act.
Sec. 715. Notwithstanding chapter 63 of title 31, United
States Code, marketing services of the Agricultural Marketing
Service; the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards
Administration; the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service; and the food safety activities of the Food Safety
and Inspection Service may use cooperative agreements to
reflect a relationship between the Agricultural Marketing
Service; the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards
Administration; the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service; or the Food Safety and Inspection Service and a
State or Cooperator to carry out agricultural marketing
programs, to carry out programs to protect the Nation's
animal and plant resources, or to carry out educational
programs or special studies to improve the safety of the
Nation's food supply.
Sec. 716. Notwithstanding any other provision of law
(including provisions of law requiring competition), the
Secretary of Agriculture may hereafter enter into cooperative
agreements (which may provide for the acquisition of goods or
services, including personal services) with a State,
political subdivision, or agency thereof, a public or private
agency, organization, or any other person, if the Secretary
determines that the objectives of the agreement will: (1)
serve a mutual interest of the parties to the agreement in
carrying out the programs administered by the Natural
Resources Conservation Service; and (2) all parties will
contribute resources to the accomplishment of these
objectives: Provided, That Commodity Credit Corporation funds
obligated for such purposes shall not exceed the level
obligated by the Commodity Credit Corporation for such
purposes in fiscal year 1998.
Sec. 717. None of the funds in this Act may be used to
retire more than 5 percent of the Class A stock of the Rural
Telephone Bank or to maintain any account or subaccount
within the accounting records of the Rural Telephone Bank the
creation of which has not specifically been authorized by
statute: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision
of law, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available in this Act may be used to transfer to the Treasury
or to the Federal Financing Bank any unobligated balance of
the Rural Telephone Bank telephone liquidating account which
is in excess of current requirements and such balance shall
receive interest as set forth for financial accounts in
section 505(c) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990.
Sec. 718. Of the funds made available by this Act, not more
than $1,500,000 shall be used to cover necessary expenses of
activities related to all advisory committees, panels,
commissions, and task forces of the Department of
Agriculture, except for panels used to comply with negotiated
rule makings and panels used to evaluate competitively
awarded grants.
Sec. 719. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used to carry out section 410 of the Federal Meat Inspection
Act (21 U.S.C. 679a) or section 30 of the Poultry Products
Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 471).
Sec. 720. No employee of the Department of Agriculture may
be detailed or assigned from an agency or office funded by
this Act to any other agency or office of the Department for
more than 30 days unless the individual's employing agency or
office is fully reimbursed by the receiving agency or office
for the salary and expenses of the employee for the period of
assignment.
Sec. 721. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available to the Department of Agriculture shall be used to
transmit or otherwise make available to any non-Department of
Agriculture employee questions or responses to questions that
are a result of information requested for the appropriations
hearing process.
Sec. 722. None of the funds made available to the
Department of Agriculture by this Act may be used to acquire
new information technology systems or significant upgrades,
as determined by the Office of the Chief Information Officer,
without the approval of the Chief Information Officer and the
concurrence of the Executive Information Technology
Investment Review Board: Provided, That notwithstanding any
other provision of law, none of the funds appropriated or
otherwise made available by this Act may be transferred to
the Office of the Chief Information Officer without the prior
approval of the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses
of Congress.
Sec. 723. (a) None of the funds provided by this Act, or
provided by previous Appropriations Acts to the agencies
funded by this Act that remain available for obligation or
expenditure in the current fiscal year, or provided from any
accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the
collection of fees available to the agencies funded by this
Act, shall be available for obligation or expenditure through
a reprogramming of funds which: (1) creates new programs; (2)
eliminates a program, project, or activity; (3) increases
funds or personnel by any means for any project or activity
for which funds have been denied or restricted; (4) relocates
an office or employees; (5) reorganizes offices, programs, or
activities; or (6) contracts out or privatizes any functions
or activities presently performed by Federal employees;
unless the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of
Congress are notified 15 days in advance of such
reprogramming of funds.
(b) None of the funds provided by this Act, or provided by
previous Appropriations Acts to the agencies funded by this
Act that remain available for obligation or expenditure in
the current fiscal year, or provided from any accounts in the
Treasury of the United States derived by the collection of
fees available to the agencies funded by this Act, shall be
available for obligation or expenditure for activities,
programs, or projects through a reprogramming of funds in
excess of $500,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, that:
(1) augments existing programs, projects, or activities; (2)
reduces by 10 percent funding for any existing program,
project, or activity, or numbers of personnel by 10 percent
as approved by Congress; or (3) results from any general
savings from a reduction in personnel which would result in a
change in existing programs, activities, or projects as
approved by Congress; unless the Committees on Appropriations
of both Houses of Congress are notified 15 days in advance of
such reprogramming of funds.
Sec. 724. With the exception of funds needed to administer
and conduct oversight of grants awarded and obligations
incurred prior to enactment of this Act, none of the funds
appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other
Act may be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel
to carry out section 793 of Public Law 104-127, the Fund for
Rural America (7 U.S.C. 2204f).
[[Page H5687]]
Sec. 725. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries and
expenses of personnel who carry out an environmental quality
incentives program authorized by chapter 4 of subtitle D of
title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa
et seq.) in excess of $174,000,000.
Sec. 726. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
available to the Department of Agriculture in the current
fiscal year or thereafter may be used to administer the
provision of contract payments to a producer under the
Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.)
for contract acreage on which wild rice is planted unless the
contract payment is reduced by an acre for each contract acre
planted to wild rice.
Sec. 727. With the exception of funds needed to administer
and conduct oversight of grants awarded and obligations
incurred prior to enactment of this Act, none of the funds
appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other
Act may be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel
to carry out the provisions of section 401 of Public Law 105-
185, the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems
(7 U.S.C. 7621).
Sec. 728. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act shall be used to carry out any
commodity purchase program that would prohibit eligibility or
participation by farmer-owned cooperatives.
Sec. 729. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries and
expenses of personnel to carry out a conservation farm option
program, as authorized by section 1240M of the Food Security
Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839bb).
Sec. 730. None of the funds made available by this Act or
any other Act for any fiscal year may be used to carry out
section 203(h) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7
U.S.C. 1622(h)) unless the Secretary of Agriculture inspects
and certifies agricultural processing equipment, and imposes
a fee for the inspection and certification, in a manner that
is similar to the inspection and certification of
agricultural products under that section, as determined by
the Secretary: Provided, That this provision shall not affect
the authority of the Secretary to carry out the Federal Meat
Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Poultry Products
Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.), or the Egg Products
Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 1031 et seq.).
Sec. 731. None of the funds appropriated by this Act or any
other Act shall be used to pay the salaries and expenses of
personnel who prepare or submit appropriations language as
part of the President's Budget submission to the Congress of
the United States for programs under the jurisdiction of the
Appropriations Subcommittees on Agriculture, Rural
Development, and Related Agencies that assumes revenues or
reflects a reduction from the previous year due to user fees
proposals that have not been enacted into law prior to the
submission of the Budget unless such Budget submission
identifies which additional spending reductions should occur
in the event the user fees proposals are not enacted prior to
the date of the convening of a committee of conference for
the fiscal year 2002 appropriations Act.
Sec. 732. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act shall be used to carry out a Community
Food Security program or any similar activity within the
United States Department of Agriculture without the prior
approval of the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses
of Congress.
Sec. 733. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this or any other Act may be used to carry out
provision of section 612 of Public Law 105-185.
Mr. SKEEN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the remainder of title VII through page 72, line 4 be considered
as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New Mexico?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to this portion of the bill?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 734. Hereafter no funds shall be used for the Kyoto
Protocol, including such Kyoto mechanisms as carbon emissions
trading schemes and the Clean Development Mechanism that are
found solely in the Kyoto Protocol and nowhere in the laws of
the United States.
Amendment No. 58 Offered by Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 58 offered by Mr. Knollenberg:
Page 72, line 5, strike Section 734 and Insert as Section
734:
None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be used to
propose or issue rules, regulations, decrees, or orders for
the purpose of implementation, or in preparation for
implementation, of the Kyoto Protocol which was adopted on
December 11, 1997, in Kyoto, Japan, at the Third Conference
of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change, which has not been submitted to the Senate
for advice and consent to ratification pursuant to article
II, section 2, clause 2, of the United States Constitution,
and which has not entered into force pursuant to article 25
of the Protocol; Provided further, the limitation established
in this section not apply to any activity otherwise
authorized by law.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I want to state at the outset that
this amendment makes the language for this Agriculture Appropriations
bill, H.R. 4461, exactly the same, word-for-word, as the language in
the energy and water appropriations bill, the same, word-for-word, that
will be in the foreign operations bill that will come before this body
this week.
This language passed by voice vote with no opposition in about 1
minute just a few days ago. I would like to make four quick key points
that are actually directed in this amendment. Number one, no agency can
proceed with activities that are not specifically authorized and
funded. Number two, no new authority is granted. Number three, neither
the United Nations framework convention on climate control, nor the
Kyoto Protocol are self-executing and specific implementing legislation
is required for any regulation, program or initiative. Number four,
since the Kyoto Protocol has not ratified and implementing legislation
has not been approved by Congress, nothing contained exclusively in
that treaty is funded.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to urge all Members to support what is a
bipartisan supported amendment, and it has been our effort to
strengthen through clarification and offer consistently in all of these
bills and we think that is the proper approach, it simplifies things,
clarifies things and I think strengthens things.
Mr. Chairman, in the morning two days ago, the House Appropriations
Committee accepted my amendment to the Foreign Operations
Appropriations bill. That afternoon an amendment that the gentleman
from Indiana Mr. Visclosky offered on the Energy and Water
Appropriations bill was exactly the same wording as what I offered and
what was accepted in the full House Appropriations Committee.
Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that this amendment regarding the
Kyoto Protocol offered by me and then Mr. Visclosky and now again by me
cannot, under the Rules of the House of Representatives, authorize
anything whatsoever on this Agriculture Appropriations bill, H.R. 106-
4461, lest it be subject to a point of order.
This amendment shall not go beyond clarification and recognition of
the original and enduring meaning of the law that has existed for years
now--specifically that no funds be spent on unauthorized activities for
the fatally flawed and unratified Kyoto Protocol.
Mr. Chairman, the whole nation deserves to hear the plea of this
Administration for clarification of the Kyoto Protocol funding
limitation. The plea came from the coordinator of all environmental
policy for this Administration, George Frampton, in his position as
Acting Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality. On March 1, 2000,
on behalf of the Administration he stated before the VA/HUD
appropriations subcommittee, and I quote, ``Just to finish our dialogue
here [about the Kyoto Protocol funding limitation], my point was that
it is the very uncertainty about the scope of the language . . . that
gives rise to our wanting to not have the continuation of this
uncertainty created next year.''
Mr. Chairman, I agree with Mr. Obey when he stated to the
Administration, ``You're nuts!'' upon learning of the fatally flawed
Kyoto Protocol that Vice President Gore negotiated.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the Congress for the focus on the activities of
this Administration, both authorized and unauthorized.
This amendment shall be read to be a clarification that is fully
consistent with the provision that has been signed by President Clinton
in six current appropriations laws.
A few key points must be reviewed:
First, no agency can proceed with activities that are not
specifically authorized and funded. Mr. Chairman, there has been an
effort to confuse the long-standing support that I as well as other
strong supporters of the provision on the Kyoto Protocol have regarding
important energy supply and energy conservation program. For example,
there has never been a question about strong support for voluntary
programs, development of clean coal technology, and improvements in
energy conservation for all sectors of our economy. Notwithstanding
arguments that have been made on the floor in recent days, I have
never, ever tried to undermine, eliminate, delete, or delay any
programs that have been specifically authorized and funded.
Second, no new authority is granted.
[[Page H5688]]
Third, since neither the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change nor the Kyoto Protocol are self executing, specific
implementing legislation is required for any regulation, program, or
initiative.
Fourth, since the Kyoto Protocol has not been ratified and
implementing legislation has not been approved by Congress, nothing
contained exclusively in that treaty is funded.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, the Administration negotiated the Kyoto
Climate Change Protocol some time ago but has decided not to submit
this treaty to the United States Senate for ratification. All
indications from this Administration lead to the conclusion that they
have no intention of ever submitting the Kyoto Protocol to the Senate.
Pursuant to Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States
Constitution, the President only has the power to make treaties ``by
and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.'' It is therefore
unconstitutional for the President to make a treaty in contravention of
the Advice of the Senate. The unanimous (95-0) advice of the Senate was
given in Senate Resolution 105-98, referred to as the Byrd-Hagel
Resolution.
Likewise it is therefore unconstitutional for the President to make a
treaty with no intention of ever seeking the consent of the Senate.
The Protocol places severe restrictions on the United States while
exempting most countries, including China, India, Mexico, and Brazil,
from taking measures to reduce carbon dioxide equivalent emissions. The
Administration undertook this course of action despite unanimous
support in the United States Senate for the Senate's advice in the form
of the Byrd-Hagel resolution calling for commitments by all nations and
on the condition that the Protocol not adversely impact the economy of
the United States.
We are also concerned that actions taken by Federal agencies
constitute the implementation of this treaty before its submission to
Congress as required by the Constitution of the United States. Clearly,
Congress cannot allow any agency to attempt to interpret current law to
avoid constitutional due process.
Clearly, we would not need this debate if the Administration would
send the treaty to the Senate. The treaty would be disposed of and we
could return to a more productive process for addressing our energy
future.
During numerous hearings on this issue, the administration has not
been willing to engage in this debate. For example, it took months to
extract the documents the administration used for its flawed economics.
The message is clear--there is no interest in sharing with the American
public the real price tag of this policy.
A balanced public debate will be required because there is much to be
learned about the issue before we commit this country to unprecedented
curbs on energy use while most of the world is exempt.
Worse yet, some treaty supporters see this as only a first step to
elimination of fossil energy production. Unfortunately, the
Administration has chosen to keep this issue out of the current debate.
I look forward to working to assure that the administration and EPA
understand the boundaries of the current law. It will be up to Congress
to assure that backdoor implementation of the Kyoto Protocol does not
occur.
In that regard I would like to include in the Record a letter with
legislative history of the Clean Air Act reported by Congressman John
Dingell who was the Chairman of the House Conference on the Clearn Air
Act amendments of 1990. No one knows the Clean Air Act like Congressman
Dingell. He makes clear, and I quote, ``Congress has not enacted
implementing legislation authorizing EPA or any other agency to
regulate greenhouse gases.''
In closing, I look forward to the report language to clarify what
activities are and are not authorized.
Mr. Chairman, I include the following letter for the Record:
October 5, 1999.
Hon. David M. McIntosh,
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural
Resources, and Regulatory Affairs, Committee on
Government Reform, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that you have asked, based
on discussions between our staffs, about the disposition by
the House-Senate conferees of the amendments in 1990 to the
Clean Air Act (CAA) regarding greenhouse gases such as
methane and carbon dioxide. In making this inquiry, you call
my attention to an April 10, 1998 Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) memorandum entitled `EPA's Authority to Regulate
Pollutants Emitted by Electric Power Generation Sources' and
an October 12, 1998 memorandum entitled `The Authority of EPA
to Regulate Carbon Dioxide Under the Clean Air Act' prepared
for the National Mining Association. The latter memorandum
discusses the legislative history of the 1990 amendments.
First, the House-passed bill (H.R. 3030) never included any
provision regarding the regulation of any greenhouse gas,
such as methane or carbon dioxide, nor did the bill address
global climate change. The House, however, did include
provisions aimed at implementing the Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.
Second, as to the Senate version (S. 1630) of the proposed
amendments, the October 12, 1998 memorandum correctly points
out that the Senate did address greenhouse gas matters and
global warming, along with provisions implementing the
Montreal Protocol. Nevertheless, only Montreal Protocol
related provisions were agreed to by the House-Senate
conferees (see Conf. Rept. 101-952, Oct. 26, 1990).
However, I should point out that Public Law 101-549 of
November 15, 1990, which contains the 1990 amendments to the
CAA, includes some provisions, such as sections 813, 817 and
819-821, that were enacted as free-standing provisions
separate from the CAA. Although the Public Law often refers
to the `Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,' the Public Law
does not specify that reference as the `short title' of all
of the provisions included the Public Law.
One of these free-standing provisions, section 821,
entitled `Information Gathering on Greenhouse Gases
contributing to Global Climate Change' appears in the United
States code as a `note' (at 42 U.S.C. 7651k). It requires
regulations by the EPA to `monitor carbon dioxide emissions'
from `all affected sources subject to title V' of the CAA and
specifies that the emissions are to be reported to the EPA.
That section does not designate carbon dioxide as a
`pollutant' for any purpose.
Finally, Title IX of the Conference Report, entitled `Clean
Air Research,' was primarily negotiated at the time by the
House and Senate Science Committees, which had no regulatory
jurisdiction under House-Senate Rules. This title amended
section 103 of the CAA by adding new subsections (c) through
(k). New subsection (g), entitled `Pollution Prevention and
Control,' calls for `non-regulatory strategies and
technologies for air pollution prevention.' While it refers,
as noted in the EPA memorandum, to carbon dioxide as a
`pollutant,' House and Senate conferees never agreed to
designate carbon dioxide as a pollutant for regulatory or
other purposes.
Based on my review of this history and my recollection of
the discussions, I would have difficulty concluding that the
House-Senate conferees, who rejected the Senate regulatory
provisions (with the exception of the above-referenced
section 821), contemplated regulating greenhouse gas
emissions or addressing global warming under the Clean Air
Act. Shortly after enactment of Public Law 101-549, the
United Nations General Assembly established in December 1990
the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee that ultimately
led to the Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was
ratified by the United States after advice and consent by the
Senate. That Convention is, of course, not self-executing,
and the Congress has not enacted implementing legislation
authorizing EPA or any other agency to regulate greenhouse
gases.
I hope that this is responsive.
With best wishes,
Sincerely,
John D. Dingell,
Ranking Member.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Knollenberg
amendment. His characterization of the language is absolutely correct.
It is the same as energy and water, it is the same as full committee
has reported for foreign operations and essentially the same intent as
Veterans Administration, HUD and Urban Development as well.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate his work in a bipartisan fashion and,
again, I agree with the premise of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Knollenberg), Kyoto is not the law of the land, but we want to ensure
that where we have authorized programs and where there is duplicate
language that the law can also be followed. I do appreciate the
initiative of the gentleman and would ask my colleagues to support his
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 735. After taking any action involving the seizure,
quarantine, treatment, destruction, or disposal of wheat
infested with karnal bunt, the Secretary of Agriculture shall
compensate the producers and handlers for economic losses
incurred as the result of the action not later than 45 days
after receipt of a claim that includes all appropriate
paperwork.
Sec. 736. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Town of Lloyd, New York and the Town of Harris, New York
shall be eligible for loans and grants provided through the
Rural Community Advancement Program.
{time} 1630
Amendment No. 56 Offered by Mr. Boyd
Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
[[Page H5689]]
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 56 offered by Mr. Boyd:
Page 72, lines 18 and 19, strike ``Town of Harris'' and
insert ``Town of Thompson''.
Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure that we have the
amendment correct. It should be the amendment that changes the ``Town
of Harris'' to the ``Town of Thompson.''
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida is correct.
Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, it is a technical amendment. I ask support
for the amendment.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I accept the gentleman's amendment and recommend that
the House do so as well.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read:
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 737. Hereafter, notwithstanding section 502(h)(7) of
the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1472(h)(7)), the fee
collected by the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to a
guaranteed loan under such section 502(h) at the time of the
issuance of such guarantee may be in an amount equal to not
more than 2 percent of the principal obligation of the loan.
Sec. 738. The Secretary of Agriculture may use funds
available under this and subsequent appropriation Acts to
employ individuals to perform services outside the United
States as determined by the agencies to be necessary or
appropriate for carrying out programs and activities abroad;
and such employment actions, hereafter referred to as
Personal Service Agreements (PSA), are authorized to be
negotiated, the terms of the PSA to be prescribed and work to
be performed, where necessary, without regard to such
statutory provisions as related to the negotiation, making
and performance of contracts and performance of work in the
United States. Individuals employed under a PSA to perform
such services outside the United States shall not by virtue
of such employment be considered employees of the United
States Government for purposes of any law administered by the
Office of Personnel Management. Such individuals may be
considered employees within the meaning of the Federal
Employee Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. 8101 et seq. Further,
that Government service credit shall be accrued for the time
employed under a PSA should the individual later be hired
into a permanent U.S. Government position within FAS or
another U.S. Government agency if their authorities so
permit.
Sec. 739. (a) In General.--Section 141 of the Agricultural
Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7251) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(4), by striking ``and 2000''; and
inserting ``through 2001''; and
(2) in subsection (h), by striking ``2000'' each place it
appears and inserting ``2001''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 142(e) of the
Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7252(e)) is
amended by striking ``2001'' and inserting ``2002''.
Sec. 740. In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated or
made available by this Act, $4,000,000 is appropriated for
the purpose of providing Bill Emerson and Mickey Leland
Hunger Fellowships through the Congressional Hunger Center.
Sec. 741. Notwithstanding section 718, title VII of Public
Law 105-277, as amended, funds made available hereafter in
annual appropriations acts may be used to provide market
access program assistance pursuant to section 203 of the
Agricultural Trade Act of 1978, as amended (7 U.S.C. 5623),
to any agricultural commodity as defined in section 102 of
the Agriculture Trade Act of 1978, as amended (7 U.S.C.
5602), except for products specifically excluded by section
1302, title I of Public Law 103-66, as amended, the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.
Point of Order
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order on this section
restoring the eligibility of mink for MAP funds.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members who wish to be heard on the
point of order that this section constitutes legislation?
The Chair finds, that this provision explicitly supersedes existing
law in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is
sustained, and the provision is stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 742. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used to include a flood plain
determination in any environmental impact study conducted by
or at the request of the Farm Service Agency for financial
obligations or guarantees to aquaculture facilities pending
the completion by the Secretary of Agriculture and submission
to Congress of a study regarding the environmental impact of
aquaculture activities in flood plains in Arkansas.
Sec. 743. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or
regulation, hereafter Friends of the National Arboretum, an
organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from taxation under section
501(a) of such Code incorporated in the District of Columbia,
shall not be considered a prohibited source with respect to
the United States National Arboretum and its employees for
any reason, including for the purposes relating to gifts,
compensation, or any other donations of any size or kind, so
long as Friends of the National Arboretum remains an
organization described under section 501(c)(3) of such Code
and continues to conduct its operations exclusively for the
benefit of the United States National Arboretum.
Sec. 744. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary shall include the value of lost production when
determining the amount of compensation to be paid to owners,
as provided in Public Law 106-113, appendix E, title II,
section 204, for the cost of tree replacement for commercial
trees destroyed as part of the Citrus Canker Eradication
Program in Florida.
Sec. 745. (a) The Secretary of Agriculture shall issue
regulations requiring, for each child nutrition program,
that--
(1) alternate protein products which are used to resemble
and substitute, in part, for meat, poultry, or seafood shall
meet the nutritional specifications for vegetable protein
products set forth in section 2(e)(3) of the matter relating
to vegetable protein products in appendix A to part 210 of
title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on April
9, 2000; and
(2) if alternate protein products comprise 30 percent or
more of a meat, poultry, or seafood product, that fact shall
be disclosed at the point of service.
(b) The Secretary shall require that the regulations issued
pursuant to subsection (a) shall be implemented by each
program participant not later than January 1, 2001, and
thereafter.
Sec. 746. Effective 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act and continuing for the remainder of
fiscal year 2001 and each subsequent fiscal year,
establishments in the United States that slaughter or process
birds of the order Ratitae, such as ostriches, emus and
rheas, and squab, for distribution in commerce as human food
shall be subject to the ante mortem and post mortem
inspection, reinspection, and sanitation requirements of the
Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.)
rather than the voluntary poultry inspection program of the
Department of Agriculture under section 203 of the
Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1622).
Sec. 747. In using funds made available under section
801(a) of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000
(Public Law 106-78; 113 Stat. 1175), or under the heading
``crop loss assistance'' under ``Commodity Credit Corporation
Fund'' of H.R. 3425 of the 106th Congress (as contained in
appendix E of Public Law 106-113 (113 Stat. 1501A-289)), to
compensate nursery stock producers for nursery stock losses
caused by Hurricane Irene on October 16 and 17, 1999, the
Secretary of Agriculture shall treat the losses as losses to
the 1999 nursery stock crop.
Sec. 748. Any regulation issued pursuant to any plan to
eliminate Salmonella Enteritidis illnesses due to eggs
(including the Action Plan to Eliminate Salmonella
Enteritidis Illnesses Due to Eggs, published on December 10,
1999) which establishes requirements for producers or packers
of shell eggs to conduct tests for Salmonella Enteritidis
shall contain provisions to defray or reimburse the costs of
such tests to producers or packers. Any requirements pursuant
to any such plan to divert eggs into pasteurization shall be
imposed only as a consequence of positive test results from
end product testing. The number of environmental tests
required pursuant to any such plan shall, to the extent
practicable, not exceed the number of such tests required
pursuant to existing national quality assurance programs for
shell eggs.
Sec. 749. Section 321(b) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1961(b)) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(3) Loans to poultry farmers.--
``(A) Inability to obtain insurance.--
``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this subtitle, the Secretary may make a loan to a poultry
farmer under this subtitle to cover the loss of a chicken
house for which the farmer did not have hazard insurance at
the time of the loss, if the farmer--
``(I) applied for, but was unable, to obtain hazard
insurance for the chicken house;
``(II) uses the loan to rebuild the chicken house in
accordance with industry standards in effect on the date the
farmer submits an application for the loan (referred to in
this paragraph as `current industry standards');
``(III) obtains, for the term of the loan, hazard insurance
for the full market value of the chicken house; and
``(IV) meets the other requirements for the loan under this
subtitle, other than (if the Secretary finds that the
applicant's farming operations have been substantially
affected by a major disaster or emergency designated by the
President under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.)) the
requirement that an applicant not be able to obtain
sufficient credit elsewhere.
``(ii) Amount.--The amount of a loan made to a poultry
farmer under clause (i) shall be
[[Page H5690]]
an amount that will allow the farmer to rebuild the chicken
house in accordance with current industry standards.
``(B) Loans to comply with current industry standards.--
``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this subtitle, the Secretary may make a loan to a poultry
farmer under this subtitle to cover the loss of a chicken
house for which the farmer had hazard insurance at the time
of the loss, if--
``(I) the amount of the hazard insurance is less than the
cost of rebuilding the chicken house in accordance with
current industry standards;
``(II) the farmer uses the loan to rebuild the chicken
house in accordance with current industry standards;
``(III) the farmer obtains, for the term of the loan,
hazard insurance for the full market value of the chicken
house; and
``(IV) the farmer meets the other requirements for the loan
under this subtitle, other than (if the Secretary finds that
the applicant's farming operations have been substantially
affected by a major disaster or emergency designated by the
President under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.)) the
requirement that an applicant not be able to obtain
sufficient credit elsewhere.
``(ii) Amount.--The amount of a loan made to a poultry
farmer under clause (i) shall be the difference between--
``(I) the amount of the hazard insurance obtained by the
farmer; and
``(II) the cost of rebuilding the chicken house in
accordance with current industry standards.''.
Sec. 750. Public Law 105-277, division A, title XI, section
1121 (112 Stat. 2681-44, 2681-45) is amended by--
(1) striking ``not later than January 1, 2000'' and
inserting ``not later than January 1, 2001''; and
(2) adding the following new subsection at the end
thereof--
``(d) Additional Disbursement.--
``(1) Cotton stored in georgia.--The State of Georgia shall
use funds remaining in the indemnity fund established in
accordance with this section to compensate cotton producers
in other States who stored cotton in the State of Georgia and
incurred losses in 1998 or 1999 as the result of the events
described in subsection (a).
``(2) Ginners and others.--The State of Georgia may also
use funds remaining in the indemnity fund established in
accordance with this section to compensate cotton ginners and
others in the business of producing, ginning, warehousing,
buying, or selling cotton for losses they incurred in 1998 or
1999 as the result of the events described in subsection (a),
if--
``(A) as of March 1, 2000, the indemnity fund has not been
exhausted;
``(B) the State of Georgia provides cotton producers
(including cotton producers described in paragraph (1)) an
additional time period prior to May 1, 2000, in which to
establish eligibility for compensation under this section;
``(C) the State of Georgia determines during calendar year
2000 that all cotton producers in that State and cotton
producers in other States as described in paragraph (1) have
been appropriately compensated for losses incurred in 1998 or
1999 as described in subsection (a); and
``(D) such additional compensation is not made available
until May 1, 2000.''.
apple market loss assistance and quality loss payments for apples and
potatoes
Sec. 751. (a) Apple Market Loss Assistance.--In order to
provide relief for loss of markets for apples, the Secretary
of Agriculture shall use $100,000,000 to make payments to
apple producers. Payments shall be made on a per pound basis
on each qualifying producer's 1999 production of apples,
subject to such terms and conditions on such payments as may
be established by the Secretary. Payments under this
subsection, however, shall not be made with respect to that
part of a farm's 1999 apple production that is in excess of
1.6 million pounds.
(b) Quality Loss Payments for Apples and Potatoes.--In
addition, the Secretary shall use $15,000,000 to provide
compensation to producers of potatoes and to producers of
apples who suffered quality losses to their 1999 production
of those crops due to, or related to, a 1999 hurricane.
(c) Non-Duplication of Payments.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this section, the payments made under this
section shall be designed to avoid, taken into account other
federal compensation programs as may apply, a duplication of
payments for the same loss. Payments made under Federal crop
insurance programs shall not, however, be considered to be
duplicate payments.
(d) Funding.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall use the
funds, facilities, and authorities of the Commodity Credit
Corporation to carry out this section.
(e) Emergency Designation.--The entire amount necessary to
carry out this section shall be available only to the extent
that an official budget request for the entire amount, that
includes designation of the entire amount of the request as
an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is
transmitted by the President to the Congress: Provided, That
the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of
such Act.
Sec. 752. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this or any other Act may be used to pay
salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out section
508(k) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(k))
to reimburse approved insurance providers and agents for the
administrative and operating costs that exceed 20 percent of
the premium used to define loss ratio for plans currently
reimbursed at 24.5 percent and a proportional reduction for
the plans currently reimbursed at less than 24.5 percent.
Point of Order
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order against
the provision appearing on page 85, lines 6 through 15, of H.R. 4461,
the Agriculture Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001.
The provision cited above violates clause 2(b) of rule XXI of the
House in that it contains legislative or authorizing language in an
appropriations bill as noted below:
The provision places a limitation on expenditures of the Insurance
Fund authorized under the Federal Crop Insurance Act where such
limitation does not exist under current law instead of confining such
limitation on expenditures to funds made available under this act.
Additionally, by addressing funds in other acts, the amendment changes
existing law in violation of clause 2(b) of rule XXI of the House.
The CHAIRMAN. Although a limitation, the section addresses funds
outside the current bill and, therefore, does constitute legislation.
The point of order is sustained. Section 752 is, therefore, stricken
from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE VIII--TRADE SANCTIONS REFORM AND EXPORT ENHANCEMENT
SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Trade Sanctions Reform and
Export Enhancement Act of 2000''.
SEC. 802. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Agricultural commodity.--The term ``agricultural
commodity'' has the meaning given the term in section 102 of
the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5602).
(2) Agricultural program.--The term ``agricultural
program'' means--
(A) any program administered under the Agricultural Trade
Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1691 et
seq.);
(B) any program administered under section 416 of the
Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1431);
(C) any program administered under the Agricultural Trade
Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.);
(D) the dairy export incentive program administered under
section 153 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (15 U.S.C. 713a-
14);
(E) any commercial export sale of agricultural commodities;
or
(F) any export financing (including credits or credit
guarantees) provided by the United States Government for
agricultural commodities.
(3) Joint resolution.--The term ``joint resolution''
means--
(A) in the case of section 803(a)(1), only a joint
resolution introduced within 10 session days of Congress
after the date on which the report of the President under
section 803(a)(1) is received by Congress, the matter after
the resolving clause of which is as follows: ``That Congress
approves the report of the President pursuant to section
803(a)(1) of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export
Enhancement Act of 2000, transmitted on _______.'', with the
blank completed with the appropriate date; and
(B) in the case of section 806(1), only a joint resolution
introduced within 10 session days of Congress after the date
on which the report of the President under section 806(2) is
received by Congress, the matter after the resolving clause
of which is as follows: ``That Congress approves the report
of the President pursuant to section 806(1) of the Trade
Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000,
transmitted on _______.'', with the blank completed with the
appropriate date.
(4) Medical device.--The term ``medical device'' has the
meaning given the term ``device'' in section 201 of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321).
(5) Medicine.--The term ``medicine'' has the meaning given
the term ``drug'' in section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321).
(6) Unilateral agricultural sanction.--The term
``unilateral agricultural sanction'' means any prohibition,
restriction, or condition on carrying out an agricultural
program with respect to a foreign country or foreign entity
that is imposed by the United States for reasons of foreign
policy or national security, except in a case in which the
United States imposes the measure pursuant to a multilateral
regime and the other member countries of that regime have
agreed to impose substantially equivalent measures.
(7) Unilateral medical sanction.--The term ``unilateral
medical sanction'' means any prohibition, restriction, or
condition on exports of, or the provision of assistance
consisting of, medicine or a medical device with respect to a
foreign country or foreign entity
[[Page H5691]]
that is imposed by the United States for reasons of foreign
policy or national security, except in a case in which the
United States imposes the measure pursuant to a multilateral
regime and the other member countries of that regime have
agreed to impose substantially equivalent measures.
SEC. 803. RESTRICTION.
(a) New Sanctions.--Except as provided in sections 804 and
805 and notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
President may not impose a unilateral agricultural sanction
or unilateral medical sanction against a foreign country or
foreign entity, unless--
(1) not later than 60 days before the sanction is proposed
to be imposed, the President submits a report to Congress
that--
(A) describes the activity proposed to be prohibited,
restricted, or conditioned; and
(B) describes the actions by the foreign country or foreign
entity that justify the sanction; and
(2) there is enacted into law a joint resolution stating
the approval of Congress for the report submitted under
paragraph (1).
(b) Existing Sanctions.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
President shall terminate any unilateral agricultural
sanction or unilateral medical sanction that is in effect as
of the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Exemptions.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a
unilateral agricultural sanction or unilateral medical
sanction imposed--
(A) with respect to any program administered under section
416 of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1431);
(B) with respect to the Export Credit Guarantee Program
(GSM-102) or the Intermediate Export Credit Guarantee Program
(GSM-103) established under section 202 of the Agricultural
Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5622); or
(C) with respect to the dairy export incentive program
administered under section 153 of the Food Security Act of
1985 (15 U.S.C. 713a-14).
SEC. 804. EXCEPTIONS.
Section 803 shall not affect any authority or requirement
to impose (or continue to impose) a sanction referred to in
section 803--
(1) against a foreign country or foreign entity--
(A) pursuant to a declaration of war against the country or
entity;
(B) pursuant to specific statutory authorization for the
use of the Armed Forces of the United States against the
country or entity;
(C) against which the Armed Forces of the United States are
involved in hostilities; or
(D) where imminent involvement by the Armed Forces of the
United States in hostilities against the country or entity is
clearly indicated by the circumstances; or
(2) to the extent that the sanction would prohibit,
restrict, or condition the provision or use of any
agricultural commodity, medicine, or medical device that is--
(A) controlled on the United States Munitions List
established under section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act
(22 U.S.C. 2778);
(B) controlled on any control list established under the
Export Administration Act of 1979 or any successor statute
(50 U.S.C. App. 2401 et seq.); or
(C) used to facilitate the development or production of a
chemical or biological weapon or weapon of mass destruction.
SEC. 805. COUNTRIES SUPPORTING INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM.
Notwithstanding section 803 and except as provided in
section 807, the prohibitions in effect on or after the date
of the enactment of this Act under section 620A of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371) on providing,
to the government of any country supporting international
terrorism, United States Government assistance, including
United States foreign assistance, United States export
assistance, or any United States credits or credit
guarantees, shall remain in effect for such period as the
Secretary of State determines under such section 620A that
the government of the country has repeatedly provided support
for acts of international terrorism.
SEC. 806. TERMINATION OF SANCTIONS.
Any unilateral agricultural sanction or unilateral medical
sanction that is imposed pursuant to the procedures described
in section 803(a) shall terminate not later than 2 years
after the date on which the sanction became effective
unless--
(1) not later than 60 days before the date of termination
of the sanction, the President submits to Congress a report
containing--
(A) the recommendation of the President for the
continuation of the sanction for an additional period of not
to exceed 2 years; and
(B) the request of the President for approval by Congress
of the recommendation; and
(2) there is enacted into law a joint resolution stating
the approval of Congress for the report submitted under
paragraph (1).
SEC. 807. STATE SPONSORS OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this title, the export of agricultural commodities, medicine,
or medical devices to the government of a country that has
been determined by the Secretary of State to have repeatedly
provided support for acts of international terrorism under
section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C.
2371) shall only be made--
(1) pursuant to one-year licenses issued by the United
States Government for contracts entered into during the one-
year period and completed with the 12-month period beginning
on the date of the signing of the contract, except that, in
the case of the export of items used for food and for food
production, such one-year licenses shall otherwise be no more
restrictive than general licenses; and
(2) without benefit of Federal financing, direct export
subsidies, Federal credit guarantees, or other Federal
promotion assistance programs.
(b) Quarterly Reports.--The applicable department or agency
of the Federal Government shall submit to the appropriate
congressional committees on a quarterly basis a report on any
activities undertaken under subsection (a)(1) during the
preceding calendar quarter.
(c) Biennial Reports.--Not later than two years after the
date of enactment of this Act, and every two years
thereafter, the applicable department or agency of the
Federal Government shall submit a report to the appropriate
congressional committees on the operation of the licensing
system under this section for the preceding two-year period,
including--
(1) the number and types of licenses applied for;
(2) the number and types of licenses approved;
(3) the average amount of time elapsed from the date of
filing of a license application until the date of its
approval;
(4) the extent to which the licensing procedures were
effectively implemented; and
(5) a description of comments received from interested
parties about the extent to which the licensing procedures
were effective, after the applicable department or agency
holds a public 30-day comment period.
SEC. 808. CONGRESSIONAL PROCEDURES.
(a) Referral of Report.--A report described in section
803(a)(1) or 806(1) shall be referred to the appropriate
committee or committees of the House of Representatives and
to the appropriate committee or committees of the Senate.
(b) Referral of Joint Resolution.--
(1) In general.--A joint resolution introduced in the
Senate shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign
Relations, and a joint resolution introduced in the House of
Representatives shall be referred to the Committee on
International Relations.
(2) Reporting date.--A joint resolution referred to in
paragraph (1) may not be reported before the eighth session
day of Congress after the introduction of the joint
resolution.
SEC. 809. EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), this
title shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act,
and shall apply thereafter in any fiscal year.
(b) Existing Sanctions.--In the case of any unilateral
agricultural sanction or unilateral medical sanction that is
in effect as of the date of enactment of this Act, this title
shall take effect 180 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, and shall apply thereafter in any fiscal year.
Point of Order
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order
against title VIII.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that title VIII violates clause 2 of rule XXI
concerning legislating on an appropriations bill.
Title VIII is legislative in nature because it changes existing law
by lifting sanctions against terrorist states in violation of a number
of laws, including the Trading with the Enemy Act, the Cuban Democracy
Act, and the Cuban Liberty and Democracy Solidarity Act, among other
laws.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member desire to be recognized on this
point of order?
Mr. OBEY. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. I apologize, but I was momentarily
distracted. Did the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) just raise
a point of order against the Nethercutt provision on the embargo?
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, that is
correct.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that I will not try to get
into the merits of the subject, but speaking to the point of order, the
gentleman from Florida is obviously correct in his point of order
because the Committee on Rules did not protect this section of the bill
under the agreement worked out on the majority side of the aisle, which
means at this point that there is no provision in law that will protect
farmers; ability to export to the countries named either in this bill
or in the supplemental appropriations bill. I personally find that to
be regrettable.
But because of the decision of the Committee on Rules to not protect
this section of the bill and because of the agreement that was reached
by the majority party caucus, farmers are left in never-never land on
this subject. Because of that decision, the gentleman
[[Page H5692]]
is free to make the point of order, and there is no way to stop it from
being stricken.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members who wish to be heard on the
point of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that title VIII is entirely legislative in character.
As such, it violates clause 2(b) of rule XXI. The point of order is
sustained. Title VIII is stricken from the bill.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, since no one else seems to at the moment be
prepared to address an urgent item, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, let me simply take some time right now to indicate that
I think the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) has done a lot of
hard work trying to essentially squeeze a small amount of dollars into
an even smaller bag.
I think the problem is that because of the unrealistic limitation
placed upon this subcommittee by the full committee allocation, which
was made necessary by what I consider to be a misguided budget
resolution which passed this place, it means that this bill falls far
short in a number of areas. It certainly falls far short with respect
to food safety items. It falls far short with respect to resources
needed to deal with market concentration.
The average farmer is in danger of becoming a serf because of the
huge concentration that we see in the poultry business, the meat
packing business of all kinds, frankly. That is happening in other
sectors of agriculture as well.
The problems in agriculture, pests and diseases, the bill falls very,
very short of where it needs to be. The conservation programs fall some
$70 million short of the budget request. If we look at other problems,
rural development, especially rural housing is $180 million below the
budget request. PL-480 overseas food donation program is significantly
below the request. Agriculture research and extension programs are $63
million below the request.
There are a number of problems associated with this bill, including
the rider restricting egg safety measures to reduce salmonella
contamination in eggs.
I would also say that this bill is totally absent any solution to the
price problems being faced by many farmers. We have a collapsing price
as far as dairy farmers are concerned. Many other farmers are facing
similar problems with the products that they produce.
{time} 1645
And this bill will not be made whole until we move to conference,
where we will be faced with a number of Senate amendments that would
add literally billions to try to help farmers get out from under the
impact of the misguided Freedom to Farm Act that passed this body
several years ago.
So I just wanted to put on record now what my reasons would be
personally for opposing the bill when the time comes, although I
recognize that the gentleman from New Mexico has been given virtually
no maneuvering room in solving some of these problems. The fault lies
not with him. The fault lies, in my view, with the budget resolution
which was adopted in the first place, which makes it virtually
impossible for this House to meet its responsibilities to farmers, to
consumers of agriculture products, and to those interested in the issue
of rural development as well.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
(Mr. LATHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I too wanted to compliment the chairman
from New Mexico on a great job on this bill. I think we will have a few
more amendments, maybe in a few minutes here, but the gentleman from
Wisconsin brought up a couple of points I wanted to speak to.
This is an appropriations bill. This is not policy. We are funding
the policy that has been set by the Congress. I think there are a lot
of things we can do to improve the future for our farmers; work harder
on conservation to continue those efforts. I also think, as far as the
livestock disease center that is going to be going into central Iowa,
that that is going to be very, very important funding in this bill as
far as the beginning of that process.
So I think this is a good bill. Obviously, we have very tight budget
constraints that we are working under. But we also have to look at the
fact that 5 years ago we had projected deficits of $200 billion or more
as far as the eye could see. It has been only with some fiscal
restraint in this House that we have been able to talk about surpluses
and talk about returning some money back to the people out there who
work so hard to earn the money that we spend here every day. And it is
very important that we spend that money wisely and just do not open the
checkbook up or we will be back in the same kind of deficit situation
we were previous to this.
We have to look, as far as farm policy, I think, with open eyes about
looking at relief as far as taxes, estate taxes, for our farmers. We
have to look at our trade policies, the sanctions. It is unfortunate
but it is true that the language that was the authorizing language in
this bill for Cuba and Libya, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea was stricken
from the bill. It will be done this year. We are going to crack that
door open as far as lifting sanctions. But what we have to do is look
at the rest of the sanction policy that we have, not only with the
administration but with the Congress itself.
We have got to learn someday that using food and medicine as weapons
in foreign policy does not work. They never punish the people that they
are intended to punish. What we end up doing is hurting producers who
are trying to sell into those markets. We put sanctions on countries
with the idea of somehow hurting them, and all we do is hurt the poor
people in those countries by depriving them of the availability of food
and medicine.
We have also got to look at the regulatory situation we have in
agriculture. As someone who lives on a farm, I understand that in
northwest Iowa we have a lot of flat lands, they call them prairie
potholes, and yet the bureaucrats here in Washington somehow believe
that that is wetlands like they would envision them to be along the
coast of the United States. It is not. We may have an eighth of an acre
in the middle of a 240-acre field, and somehow that has to be
protected, yet it is farmed every year anyway.
We have somehow got to make a determination in agriculture who has
jurisdiction. Farmers have to deal with four Federal agencies today as
far as wetlands regulations: USDA, Fish and Wildlife, the Army Corps of
Engineers, and the EPA; and it is simply not working. They never get a
straight answer from anyone.
So, Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of things that need to be done, we
have to look at policy down the road, but again this bill is an
appropriations bill. I think with the dollars we were given, the
chairman did a fantastic job. And I also want to compliment the ranking
member, who is not here, but compliment her also for the great
cooperation. It is a real honor and privilege to serve on this
subcommittee.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Boyd
Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Boyd:
Page 96, after line 4, insert the following:
Sec. 753. None of the funds made available in this Act or
in any other Act may be used to recover part or all of any
payment erroneously made to any oyster fisherman in the State
of Connecticut for oyster losses under the program
established under section 1102(b) of the Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained in section
101(a) of Division A of the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Approprations Act, 1999 (Public Law
105-277)), and the regulations issued pursuant to such
section 1102(b).
Mr. BOYD (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment to right a
wrong against the oyster harvesters of Connecticut.
This amendment would ensure that no funds would be used to force
these men and women to return vital disaster aid back to USDA. Three
years ago, the oyster fishermen who work
[[Page H5693]]
the Long Island Sound and their families faced tough times. By the fall
of 1998, over 95 percent of the oysters on 1,750 acres of oyster beds
had died, devastating the $62 million industry and the families that
relied on it for survival.
The USDA provided $1.5 million in disaster assistance last year to
help get these families through the crisis and to ensure the long-time
survival of Connecticut's valuable oyster industry. It was the right
thing to do. It helped these small businesses get through tough times.
The oystermen thought that they had weathered the storm.
But after surviving the crisis, just a few weeks ago the oyster
harvesters got a letter in the mail from the USDA saying it was sorry,
it made a mistake, and it wanted its money back; it wanted the $1.5
million returned. That money that was invested in reseeding oyster beds
so that there would be an oyster harvest in the future, and it went to
pay mortgages, to repair boats, and to feed and educate children.
Mr. Chairman, these are not people that have $1.5 million to give
back to the Department of Agriculture. They should not be forced to
mortgage their homes and futures to pay for a bureaucratic mistake.
My amendment would simply prohibit any funds made available in this
act or in any other act from being used to recover part or all of any
payment erroneously made to any Connecticut oyster harvester for oyster
losses in 1998.
CBO has ruled it as budget neutral, taking no essential funds out of
this bill. I call on my colleagues to support the amendment and bring
justice home to the oyster harvesters of Connecticut.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I accept the gentleman's amendment and recommend that
the House do so as well.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Coburn
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Coburn:
Insert before the short title the following title:
TITLE IX--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 901. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by the Food and Drug Administration for the testing,
development, or approval (including approval of production,
manufacturing, or distribution) of any drug solely intended
for the chemical inducement of abortion.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, we have addressed this amendment 2 years
prior to now, and we have passed it each year in the House.
What this amendment does is limit and prohibit the use of funds by
the Food and Drug Administration in approving any drug that's sole
intended purpose is the chemical inducement of an abortion.
Why is this important? First of all, if we go and look at the
authorizing language to the Food and Drug Administration what we will
find is that, in fact, its charge and its mission is to provide safety
and efficacy for life and health. There is nothing about the chemical
inducement of an abortion that is safe, either for the mother or for
the unborn child. The other reason that this is important is that it
violates the very premise under which the FDA was authorized.
What this amendment would do is it would limit the expenditure of
Federal funds by the Food and Drug Administration in their efforts to
approve drugs whose sole purpose is to terminate life, to take the life
of an unborn child.
One of the things that has come to light over the last 3 years that
now cannot be disputed scientifically is that we have an ever enlarging
number of women who encounter breast cancer. And although it is not
politically correct in our culture today, the fact is that having an
abortion markedly increases one's risk for breast cancer. There are now
10 out of 11 studies that prove that without a shadow of a doubt. An
analysis of all those studies combined, plus other studies, show that
there is a 30 percent increase in the risk for breast cancer.
We have funded through this Congress and many others marked research
in breast cancer. We just passed a breast cancer and cervical cancer
bill through this House with the whole goal to extend the life of these
women. It would seem fitting to me that we would not want to allow the
FDA to go down a course in which their whole intended purpose is to
take the life of the unborn child.
The other thing that is important in this is that drugs that are
intended solely for this purpose are intended so to take the life of a
child under 9 weeks of age. We also have irrefutable evidence that now
an unborn child at 19 days post conception has a heartbeat, and at 41
days post conception has brain waves.
If we look at our definition of death in this country and we say that
the absence of brain waves and the absence of a heartbeat is death,
then certainly the opposite of that is life. So what we are talking
about is taking unborn life. Whether we fight about when life begins or
not, we know it is present at 41 days. So we are talking about
authorizing an agency of the Federal Government to figure out how best
to provide a drug to take that life.
{time} 1700
That is not what this country is about, it is not what this bill
should be about, and I would ask that the Members support this
amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today, once again, in
opposition to the Coburn Amendment that would limit FDA testing on the
drug Mifepristone or RU-486. As Congressman Coburn has tried year after
year, this amendment, as drafted, would limit FDA testing on any drug
that might induce miscarriage, including drugs that treat cancer,
ulcers and rheumatoid arthritis.
Although this debate is truly about the FDA's ability to test,
research and approve any drug based on sound scientific evidence, I
find this continual assault on a women's choice and right to control
her body frustrating, to put it lightly.
Just yesterday, the Supreme Court upheld a woman's right to choose
whether or not an abortion is right for her, without the State enacting
undue restrictions. By ruling the Nebraska ``partial birth'' ban
unconstitutional, the Court reiterated that Roe v. Wade is still the
law of the land and cannot be undermined with ambiguous anti-abortion
language.
The Supreme Court's decision spotlights the judicial branch's role in
protecting and preserving the reproductive rights of American women as
the Constitution provided. In a similar vein, the Federal Drug
Administration is charged with determining whether a drug is safe and
effective without political interference. However, Mr. Coburn's
Amendment would interject politics into this process with no regard to
the health and well being of women in the country.
Mifepristone is a proven safe drug that has been used in France since
1988 after the French Minister of Health declared Ru-486 ``the moral
property of women,'' thus showing the enlightened state of affairs in
France that continues to elude this country.
However, Mifespristone has continually satisfied the FDA's safety
requirement in 1996 based on clinical trials and after two favorable
letters it is expected to receive final approval soon.
Although Mifepristone was developed as a drug that induces chemical
miscarriage, I am more concerned about its other potential uses in
treating conditions such as infertility, ectopic pregnancy,
endometriosis, uterine fibroids and breast cancer.
The problem with characterizing this amendment as an abortion drug is
that Mifepristone has the potential for so many other uses. Thus if we
only highlight one use of Mifepristone, then we might as well do the
same for chemotherapy drugs which can also cause miscarriage.
Yet, because of the FDA's arduous approval process, many drugs have
been found to be safe and effective, notwithstanding their potential
usefulness in inducing miscarriage.
Thus, if we go by the Coburn standard, most of these drugs would have
not been developed, and future drugs may be jeopardized. Research of
potential treatments for each of these conditions is crucial to women's
health. Controversy concerning this particular drug should not be a
barrier to treatment.
Science should dictate what drugs are approved by the FDA, not
politics. Congress has never instructed the FDA to approve or
disapprove a drug. The FDA protocol for drug approval depends upon
rigorous and objective scientific evaluation of a drug's safety.
Ultimately, this is a decision that should be made by the researchers
and doctors.
This amendment could jeopardize the integrity of the FDA approval
process. Under this
[[Page H5694]]
process, a company that wants to begin clinical trials on a new drug
must submit an application for FDA approval. If that application has
not been approved within 30 days, the company may move forward.
This amendment would prevent the FDA from reviewing any application
for a drug that might induce miscarriage. No funds would be available
for the FDA to even oversee any trials.
Therefore, I urge my Colleagues to oppose this amendment. We cannot
afford to inhibit research on certain health conditions based upon the
controversy of the particular drug. We also cannot allow the FDA to be
limited in its ability to approve drugs based on politics.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Coburn
amendment.
Since being elected to Congress eight years ago, I have been working
with many of my colleagues for the right of all women in the United
States to have safe, healthy alternatives to surgical abortions.
While we've seen RU-486 become available in Europe, we're still
fighting for expanded research, development, and availability of drugs
for medical abortions, like RU-486, here in the United States.
Even worse, in Congress we continue to face these outrageous efforts
by the far right to block the Food and Drug Administration's approval
of RU-486.
I'm sad to say it, but the Coburn amendment is the same attack that
conservatives have tried every year.
Mr. Chairman, pure and simple, the Coburn amendment is an attack on a
woman's right to make decisions that affect her health.
It seeks to deny a woman's right to safe medicines like RU-486 even
when faced with a crisis pregnancy.
Furthermore, I ask my colleagues to realize that by prohibiting the
FDA from approving these medicines--This amendment will also have a
life-threatening impact on other women and men.
It harms those who have medical conditions, such as tumors, that can
be treated with drugs like RU-486.
We cannot let the far right stand in the way of women's health or
patients' lives.
I urge my colleagues--vote against the Coburn amendment!
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about the
implications on research if this amendment passes. Scientific study and
preliminary evidence show Mifepristone (RU-486) has significant promise
for the treatment of: Breast Cancer, Ovarian Cancer, Prostate Cancer,
Cushing's Disease (a Pituitary Gland Disorder), Meningioma (benign
brain tumors), and Ectopic Pregnancy.
If we block the FDA from testing or approving mifepristone, we may be
penalizing thousands of Americans who have nothing to do with the
abortion issue.
I feel this vote has greater ramifications than just abortion.
I am also concerned about preserving the scientific integrity of the
FDA's drug approval process.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that,
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 538, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn)
will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
Amendment No. 47 Offered by Mr. Royce
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 47 offered by Mr. Royce:
Page 96, after line 7, insert the following:
TITLE IX--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 901. ACROSS-THE-BOARD PERCENTAGE REDUCTION.
Each amount appropriated or otherwise made available by
this Act that is not required to be appropriated or otherwise
made available by a provision of law is hereby reduced by one
percent.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I realize that this year's agricultural
appropriations bill is below last year's level, and I applaud the
chairman for his efforts on that. However, even more reductions can be
made in this bill, and should be made, because, frankly, Congress
should continue to cut government waste.
Just a few weeks ago, the President signed into law a $15.3 billion
crop insurance and emergency farm package. That measure marks the third
big bill out of the agricultural economy in the last 3 years.
Now, this emergency bill amounts to a mini-farm bill affecting most
divisions of the agricultural department and sprinkling pet programs to
special interest groups. In effect, Congress has been passing more than
one agricultural appropriations bill each year; we have been passing
two.
In fiscal year 1999, Congress passed $6.6 billion in supplemental
assistance. So far in fiscal year 2000, Congress has passed four
different measures amounting to $15 billion in emergency agricultural
spending, and this includes the $210 million of emergency spending
attached to the military construction supplemental passed by this House
just before the July 4th recess. Not even into fiscal year 2001 yet,
Congress has already passed $1.6 billion in emergency funding.
Mr. Chairman, Congress cannot afford to past two appropriations bills
for agriculture each and every year.
Since late 1998, Congress has allotted $22 billion in disaster market
loss payments to growers, roughly doubling the subsidies promised under
the 1996 Freedom to Farm law. Lawmakers are beginning to use this
annual ritual of emergency packages as their vehicle of choice for
moving pet projects.
Under the guise of a national emergency, Congress rams through
emergency spending bills full of unnecessary, unwanted, unauthorized,
unmitigated pork. The emergency package for Colombia-Kosovo and
disaster relief included millions for a Coast Guard jet, for instance,
for Alaska. It included money for an ice breaker and other egregious
pork. If we do not cut back now, our senior citizens will pay the bills
when Medicare or Social Security runs dry, and that is not a legacy any
one of us wants to live with.
The Department of Agriculture in its current configuration still
reflects the needs of an America that existed prior to the industrial
revolution. These Depression-era programs still work to prop up
commodity prices.
Most agriculture spending aimed at farmers is based on a restrictive
centralized planning system. Sixty percent of farm payments goes to 15
percent of the farmers with gross sales in excess of $100,000. Very
little of these price supports goes to those who really need it, the
small family farmers.
Attempts to manipulate markets and subsidize the economic life of a
group of businessmen only harm consumers and farmers. Programs
dedicated to agriculture comprise 34 percent of the Department's
budget. The remainder goes to forestry, rural development, and welfare.
Back in 1862, when Abraham Lincoln created this agency, five out of
10 American workers were employed in agriculture. Well, that is no
longer the case today; yet the Agriculture Department is the fourth
largest agency in the President's cabinet, behind Defense, Veterans and
Treasury. There is now about one bureaucrat for every six full-time
farmers, and not a single one of these bureaucrats helps crops grow.
I support a gradual and consistent reduction in this appropriations
bill. We have made progress in the 1996 reforms, but we need to do
more; and we need to ensure that these reforms stay put. We must
continue to wean agricultural special interests from their dependence
on the Federal Government.
My amendment is supported by Citizens Against Government Waste. A 1
percent across-the-board reduction will save American taxpayers $750
million next year alone. It is my hope that this money will go to debt
reduction.
Again, the chairman has done an admirable job, but more can be done;
and saving one penny on every dollar is the very least we can do. I
urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the process associated with the appropriation is long.
It includes oversight hearings and evaluations of many proposals. The
subcommittee reviewed detailed budget requests and asked several
thousand questions for the record. In addition, the subcommittee
received over 2,900 individual requests for spending considerations
from Members of the House.
The funding presented in this year's bill represents the culmination
of
[[Page H5695]]
many months of work by the subcommittee. The gentleman has not been
specifically involved in the process.
The gentleman's amendment moves to arbitrarily cut funding without
any consideration to the merit or value of the needs facing American
agriculture. This approach ignores the methodical process that the
committee used to fund the line items in this bill.
If the gentleman were truly interested in reducing the bill in a
logical manner, he would identify the specific programs and accounts
that should be reduced with his amendment. Then we could have a
valuable debate on the individual merits of the funding proposal. But
the gentleman's amendment simply employs the Draconian reduction
approach to the discretionary portion of the bill, with little
understanding as to its negative impact on vital programs funded by
this bill.
I urge my colleagues to defeat the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is one of the best substitutes for
thinking that I have seen on the floor in quite some time. The
gentleman has given as one of his reasons for proposing this 1 percent
cut the fact that he does not like the fact that there are some
agriculture commodity supplementals that have been passed by the
Congress. The fact is, those are not in this bill. They do not have
diddly to do with this bill. They ought to be in this bill, because, I
promise you, before the Congress is finished, it will respond to the
problem on the farm with respect to prices.
The Senate has already passed $1.2 billion in additional assistance
to farmers who are being crippled by low prices, thanks to the
spectacular failure of the Freedom to Farm Act; and before this bill is
finished, the House will have to accept some of what the Senate is
talking about with respect to dairy funding, with respect to livestock
funding and the rest.
But the fact is, right now the bill the gentleman is trying to cut
does not contain those items, and because he does not like the fact
that somewhere along the line those items might be funded, he
apparently is willing to cut funding for child nutrition, to cut
funding for agencies that protect the public against diseased food and
items like that.
The gentleman would cut the regulation and safety of drugs and
medical devices by FDA, he would cut rural water and sewer and housing
and economic development, he would cut vital conservation programs on
the farm, he would cut the APHIS program to help control plant and
animal pests and diseases.
I just went through several national forests over the past 2 weeks
and saw the incredible damage done to those forests by pests. In fact,
I saw some spectacular damage in California. I would ask the gentleman
whether he believes that pest control programs in California are really
a waste of the taxpayers' money or not. It is destroying the timber
harvests, it is destroying agricultural products of all kind, and,
whether the gentleman recognizes it or not, forests are an agricultural
product. At least they are seen that way by a lot of people who harvest
forests for a living.
I would say that if the gentleman is comfortable in cutting USDA's
Food Safety and Inspection Service, which is responsible for the
inspection of meat and poultry, he may be comfortable doing that. I am
not. If the gentleman is comfortable saying that 74,000 fewer low-
income pregnant women and children will be served by the WIC program,
he may be comfortable with that. I am not.
Mr. Chairman, with that, I think we ought to just let the chips fall
where they may. I intend to oppose the amendment, and I would hope that
other thoughtful Members of the House would as well.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and to just
maybe clarify some of the statements made earlier.
The funding that was put in the supplemental was for hurricane
damage. These are real emergencies. It has gone on now about a year,
and without a vehicle to help the people out there that were so
devastated last year.
I just want to remind the House also, the $15 billion bill that went
through, that is spread out. The crop insurance portion of it is spread
out over 5 years, and the intention is to have a crop insurance program
in place policy-wise and funding-wise that is going to actually help
farmers manage risk.
I think we have an extremely good product, and farmers will now have
a vehicle where they can insure both price and yield risk, and
hopefully the dependency for additional supplementals will be curbed
dramatically in the future with that type of program in place. Also for
livestock producers, it has a plan in there so that they can also cover
both fatality and price risk.
So while I do not disagree with the intention of the gentleman, I
think that we need to maintain fiscal sanity around here, but I have
also heard over the 3 days of debate on this bill how this bill is
currently underfunded to begin with. I think, like the gentleman from
Wisconsin said, there are very vital services that are in this bill
that would be dramatically harmed and programs that would be
dramatically harmed with this type of cut.
I will say in reference to concern about the current farm policy that
I do not know how one can say that our current farm bill really is
responsible for the Asian financial collapse, where most of our major
customers of the world have not been able to buy our products in the
past few years. Fortunately, the economy in those areas is rebounding.
Hopefully, the future will be better. I do not know how one can say
anything about farm policy being the cause for 3 years of record
worldwide production and surpluses. That simply is not the cause of
what the price situation is as far as our grains are concerned,
certainly.
Also when one looks at what our export policy is with the embargoes
that we have on 40 percent of the world's population today, they are
totally wrong and also have a great effect as far as the prices we see
in agriculture.
So while I will match my record with anyone as far as being fiscally
responsible here, I think this is ill conceived, will do a great amount
of damage, and I would certainly hope that the House would reject it.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LATHAM. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, the point I want to make to the House and
the point I would like to make to the gentleman is that the actual
economic loss from the weather-related disasters that the gentleman has
cited was $1.5 billion. Congress responded to this by adding $4.2
billion in emergency disaster relief. This is the impulse that I am
trying to check with this amendment, to cut 1 percent, because I think
this has been the response; and it has been overly generous in terms of
what it has done with the taxpayers' funds.
{time} 1715
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I agree with the
gentleman that the problem was at that time that not all of the losses
in the agriculture sector were known. If we talk to the Members from
North Carolina, from the South who were dramatically affected, there
are additional costs, and I think there was $210 million in the
supplemental to address those issues that were not addressed
previously.
Again, I agree with the gentleman that we have to make sure that we
keep a handle on spending, but certainly there was a real emergency and
there continues to be because a lot of needs were not addressed
previously.
So I appreciate the gentleman's comments.
Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I also want to stand in opposition to the gentleman
from California's amendment. I would agree with the gentleman that ad
hoc disaster assistance payments on an annual or even sometimes more
than an annual basis is not the way to run a good railroad here. I
think the reason we have had to do that is because we have had a failed
national agricultural policy called Freedom to Farm.
However, the gentleman's amendment does not deal with that problem;
what his amendment does is go after
[[Page H5696]]
such programs as Federal food safety programs, the APHIS programs
which control the pests and diseases which we have all talked about
here in the last month or two, such things as plum pox and citrus
canker and glassy wing sharpshooter, and all of those sorts of invasive
pests that come from other countries which the APHIS has the
responsibility of keeping out of this country.
The regulation of safety and drugs and medical devices by the FDA
would be cut by this gentleman's amendment; nutrition programs for
children and the elderly; housing, water and sewer, and economic
development programs available in rural and small town America;
conservation programs of vital importance; those are the programs that
the amendment cuts.
So I would implore the gentleman from California, Mr. Chairman. If he
would like to work with us on improving the national agricultural
policy of this Nation, I would very much like to do that, but I do not
believe that this amendment is the right way to go, and I urge its
defeat.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California is rightly concerned
about expenditures growing. I have mixed emotions on how to cut Federal
spending.
In this case, if I could call on the gentleman from California, I
would inquire, does he have an idea of the millions of dollars that
this is going to cut from some important programs. The answer is
roughly $145 million. $145 million that is going to come out of the
Food and Drug Administration, that is going to come from food safety
programs, that is going to come out of reductions to the farm service
agencies that already are having difficulty serving farmers like they
should. All the regulations that we have developed in this country are
now overwhelming those county offices. So I am particularly concerned
about the ability of farmers to receive help in keeping up with all of
the rules and the regulations. This amendment would cut other farmer
assistance programs.
Mr. Chairman, we are faced with a serious situation where other
countries of the world are helping and subsidizing their farmers 5
times as much as we are; for example, in Europe. So how, when they
subsidize their farmers to that level, can we cut spending, even by the
one percent suggested.
We are going to have to make a decision. Do we want to keep
agricultural production and the agriculture industry in this country
alive and well, or are we going to let that industry fade. I say that
we better think very carefully, not just this Congress, but the
American people better think very carefully about whether we want to
produce our own food and fiber in this country; whether we want to know
that it is produced in a safe way; whether we want the freshness and
reliable supply.
In this case, I speak very strongly against the amendment. We do need
to increase the efficiency of U.S. Department of Agriculture
operations, however it is a disservice to farmers to take $145 million
out of the discretionary spending of the agriculture budget.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 538, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce)
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 36 Offered by Mr. Crowley
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 36 offered by Mr. Crowley:
Insert before the short title the following title:
TITLE IX--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 901. None of the amounts made available in this Act
for the Food and Drug Administration may be expended to
enforce or otherwise carry out section 801(d)(1) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) reserves a
point of order.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, working with the House
Committee on Government Reform's minority office and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman), the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and
myself conducted a study of the cost that seniors in our congressional
districts pay for their prescription drugs versus the cost paid by
their counterparts in Canada and Mexico for the exact same drugs. Both
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and I were startled by the
results, to say the least.
We found that seniors in our districts in New York pay, on average,
91 percent more than seniors in Canada and 89 percent more than seniors
in Mexico for the exact same drugs; twice as much for the exact same
drugs, same dosage, same in every way, expect price. We did not study
arcane drugs not used in the real world to skew our data, but rather
the 5 most popular prescription drugs sold to seniors in the U.S.
today: Zocor, Prilosec, Procardia, Zoloft, and Norvasc.
Let me put it in perspective. I have a constituent in Long Island
City, New York who has to purchase 100 capsules of Prilosec every 3
months for his wife. He pays almost $400 for these drugs. I have a
letter from the gentleman who writes, ``Isn't it an outrage for us to
pay this price for medication my wife will have to take on a regular
basis.''
Well, my answer to that gentleman is yes, it is an outrage,
especially in light of the fact that this same drug that costs $400 in
Queens, New York would have cost him $107 in Mexico and $184 in Canada.
Similar results were borne out by a number of other studies conducted
throughout the United States, studies which mirrored the results that
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and I saw in our respective
districts. But if my constituent or any American went to Mexico or
Canada to buy this drug and tried to bring them back over the border
into the United States, he or she would be committing a Federal crime
and could theoretically be punished for that crime.
The only thing criminal I see are these extremely high prices that
they are forced to pay for drugs in the United States. Mr. Chairman,
$400 for Prilosec, a drug that was researched, patented and
manufactured here in the United States. It begs the question, Mr.
Chairman: why is Prilosec cheaper in Canada and Mexico than here in the
United States where it was made and developed in the first place? It is
because in the United States the major drug manufacturers practice
price discrimination whereby they charge those least able to pay, such
as seniors on a fixed income, more for their medications than they
charge others such as HMOs and large hospitals, that enjoy sweetheart
deals with the drug manufacturers.
Price discrimination is illegal in Canada and in Mexico. That is why
I am offering this amendment today, to highlight the practice of price
discrimination by the pharmaceutical industry that is being used
against millions of American seniors who need prescription drug
medication. More simply put, Mr. Chairman, Americans are being gouged
by the American pharmaceutical industry.
I go about trying to stop this practice of price discrimination by
prohibiting funding to enforce Section 801(d)(1) of the Federal Food,
Drug and Cosmetic Act. Currently, this section of Federal law restricts
the rights of an individual to cross across international borders to
purchase one's prescription drugs. This amendment will not only allow
border residents to travel, but also force this Congress to confront
and stop the practice of price discrimination in the pharmaceutical
industry.
Mr. Chairman, I hear from my constituents all the time about the high
cost paid by them for medications. That further reinforces my
determination for this Congress to pass legislation mandating the
inclusion of a prescription drug benefit under the Medicare program.
Unfortunately, the seniors of America did not get that before
[[Page H5697]]
the recess, despite all of the rhetoric from the other side of the
aisle.
So I offer this amendment as a first step towards the assistance of
America's seniors. Prescription drug medications are not a luxury, they
are a necessity. Sometimes we forget that here as we enjoy our generous
taxpayer-subsidized, top-of-the-line health insurance.
Let me make clear what my amendment will and will not do so as not to
confuse the debate. It will decriminalize seniors who must travel south
of the border to purchase their prescription drugs. It will highlight
the fact that seniors in America are the continued victims of price
discrimination which this GOP-controlled Congress continues to ignore.
It will continue to prohibit the importation in the United States of
non FDA-approved drugs that could be dangerous.
This amendment does not weaken inspection standards for the
importation of foreign-made drugs into the U.S. At no time does this
amendment change the existing Federal regulations regarding the
importation of foreign manufactured drugs into the U.S. This amendment
will not weaken the ability of our government to inspect and seize
illegal narcotics being brought into the United States.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) insist
on his point of order?
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of a point of
order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's reservation of a point of order is
withdrawn.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
Although it is well-intentioned, this amendment will go far beyond
its stated purpose. The amendment would eliminate the ability of the
Food and Drug Administration to trace a drug back to the original
manufacturer. It is in opposition to the intention of Congress as
expressed in the Prescription Drug Marketing Act of 1987 and, most
significantly, this amendment may harm the very people the gentleman
intends to help.
The amendment assumes that all drugs with the same name are, in fact,
the same. Let me assure my colleagues that this is not the case when
dealing with imported drugs. There are many ways in which a drug may
differ from one that one would pick up at one's pharmacy. Drugs that
look legitimate may be counterfeit, sub-potent or contaminated. There
is a great profit, and great potential harm, in counterfeit drugs. This
amendment would severely hamper the efforts of the Food and Drug
Administration inspectors to stop counterfeit drugs.
The amendment further assumes that drug regulation in other countries
brings the same measure of safety that drug regulation in the United
States brings. This is a false assumption. There is a reason that U.S.
drug approval is considered the ``gold standard.'' The FDA scientists
inspect all manufacturing facilities and set standards for storage and
handling of the drug. There is great variability in the quality
controls on manufacturing throughout the world. It seems absurd that
without any FDA inspection, consumers would take complex drugs made in
countries in which they would not drink the water.
The amendment takes a shotgun approach to a very specific economic
problem. It is not a solution that gives priority to people's health.
In fact, it puts their health at risk. Is it fair for certain members
of society, because of economic concerns, to have a lesser assurance of
drug safety? Taking risks with drugs is not the way to solve an
economic problem.
I would encourage my colleagues to address those concerns in other
prescription drug discussions, and not in this bill.
{time} 1730
When we take medication and are confident in its safe and effective
use, we have the regulatory system that we have created to thank. I
urge Members to keep the system strong and fair for all Americans by
voting no on this amendment.
Mr. COBURN. I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for this amendment. I believe
the gentleman from New York has hit on an issue that we talked about
during the prescription drug debate.
I want to carry it a little further. The drug that he utilized, one
of those, is Prilosec. There are three drugs on the market to compete
with that in the United States. They all do essentially the same thing.
Prilosec is about to go off patent. It is a $5.9 billion per year drug,
per year.
Of the two drugs that have come to market to compete with it, they
are priced exactly the same. To me, that smells like no competition, it
smells like a wink and a nod. Why, in a market that is a $6 billion
market, would there not be any price competition for a drug that does
essentially the same thing?
I believe there may be some legitimate concerns about minimal
packaging or safety, but the thing we need to remember is that this
amendment is directed towards drugs made in this country, shipped to
Canada and then come back, or into Mexico and then come back. So these
are drugs that have already been licensed, they have been manufactured
in an FDA facility, and in fact they should be, under NAFTA, readily
coming across our border without any inhibition whatever if there is a
bona fide prescription for that drug in this country.
We have a crisis in prescription drugs, but it is not a crisis in
Medicare, it is a crisis in price. The reason we have the crisis in
price is there is not adequate competition in the pharmaceutical
industry.
I would direct the Members of this body to go to the FTC's website
where they have identified four manufacturers over the last year
raising the cost for prescription drugs close to $1 billion on four
separate drugs because they colluded with people to not bring other
drugs to market. They were actually paying their competitors not to
bring drugs to market.
So I believe the gentleman from New York has a wonderful idea. I
believe it is an appropriate idea. I think the safety concerns are a
red herring. There are not the safety concerns because they are
actually manufactured in this country. The FDA will not have any
limitations on it.
As far as traceability, we are going to be able to trace these drugs
like any other drug. They are not going to be allowed to be sold in
Canada with a prescription unless we can trace it and keep a record,
just as in this country. There will be completely the same types of
regulations in terms of pharmaceuticals.
As a practicing physician that sees that people cannot afford their
medicines today, we have to do something. The first thing we need to do
is to start competition. If the Justice Department is not going to
investigate the pharmaceutical industry, we should be doing this and
passing this amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I will certainly support this amendment, but I must say
that I will be amused to see those persons in this Chamber who will
today vote for this amendment who just a short time ago voted to
prevent us from being able to directly attack the problem of pricing
for prescription drugs.
The fact is if this amendment passes what we will be saying is that,
for instance, American senior citizens will not have to worry about
whether they are being penalized when they go to Canada to buy drugs
that are cheaper than they would be if they bought the very same brand
name product in the United States.
To me, if this House wants to do something really significant, it
would pass the Allen bill, which would simply require that in addition
to providing a prescription drug benefit for all seniors under
Medicare, that it would also guarantee that Medicare would be able to
assure that drug prices charged to Medicare and to senior citizens
under Medicare would have to be at the same lower price that drug
companies make available their products to their most favored volume
customers. That is what we really ought to do.
This amendment goes as far as it can go, but I would say that I do
not think seniors should be fooled that they have gotten much help from
folks who vote for this amendment who last week voted against our being
able to expand Medicare coverage for every single
[[Page H5698]]
American, and, for that matter, to attack the price issue at the same
time.
Senior citizens should not have to leave America in order to be
treated like Americans. They ought to be able to get the right
treatment here at home, and they would if this Congress had guts enough
to take on the pharmaceutical industry. It does not, so I guess this is
the best we are able to do under the circumstances.
That is not the fault of the gentleman who offers the amendment, but
it is the fault of every other Member of this House who chose last week
to make a decision that prevented us from providing real direct help to
seniors on the issue of prescription drug price. I do not think that
many seniors are going to be fooled by people who will cast that vote
last week and then run to embrace this amendment this week. I think
they will recognize tokenism when they see it.
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, as well. It
is really critical that we do something about the discrepancy in prices
of prescription drugs in Mexico, Canada, and even in Europe as far as
the prices that our senior citizens in rural Missouri are getting. We
do not live close to any of the borders, just like the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Crowley) said.
However, I have got more constituents than I can mention, and one
comes to mind whose son has a very severe case of epilepsy. The only
way she can afford the epilepsy medicine is to go to Canada to get it.
It is a big problem because she is always scared of being punished by
this government for having to do that, but she wants her son to be
well, and she otherwise could not afford the drugs. So this is very
important.
This is very similar to the legislation that the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Berry), the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and I
introduced, the International Prescription Drug Parity Act, which would
allow wholesalers, distributors, and pharmacists to reimport drugs back
into the United States, subject to FDA safety regulations. It is very
important because we must deal with the issue of price before we deal
with the issue of prescription drug coverage. I think most people would
agree with that.
I do, however, want to ask the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley)
a couple of things, particularly with regard to the safety factor,
because I cannot tell from the way his amendment is written if it is as
tough with regard to safety as our legislation is.
Would the gentleman tell me about how the FDA would oversee or
regulate the drugs that are reimported back into the United States, if
he would?
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. EMERSON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. This
will not weaken the inspection standards for the importation of
foreign-made drugs into the United States.
I understand the Committee on Commerce held hearings last month in
June to address the concerns that the FDA had only inspected 25 percent
of foreign drug manufacturers who brought medications by import into
the United States.
My amendment will not weaken the FDA here at all, or even hamper
their inspection services with regard to the foreign-made drugs being
imported into the U.S. My amendment deals only with the reimportation,
reimportation of American-made FDA-approved drugs back into the United
States.
In fact, by taking the FDA out of the business of harassing seniors,
the FDA might be able to free up additional resources to make sure what
is being firsthand imported into America from abroad is safe for human
consumption.
Additionally, by striking funding from the statute, we will not be
opening up the borders for a free flow of non-FDA imported drugs to be
brought into the United States. Section 21 of the U.S. Code states that
it is illegal to bring non-FDA-approved drugs into the U.S.
My amendment does not change that law in any way. In fact, I
understand why Section 801(d)1 was added to the law. Unfortunately, as
of late, its interpretation has not been used to protect American
consumers, but rather, large drug manufacturers, instead.
Mrs. EMERSON. I commend the gentleman and appreciate very much his
explanation of the whole issue of safety, because we have got to get a
handle on this issue once and for all, and I cannot bear to tell my
constituents one more time that if they go to Canada or if they go to
Mexico, they can get this drug for one-third to two-thirds less than
they would pay here.
It is not fair for those people, and it is not fair that our American
consumers are subsidizing the rest of the world. I thank the gentleman
and I urge, again, strong support for this amendment.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Last week the
House did take some action late one night, I think Thursday night or
1\1/2\ weeks ago, that will begin to open this door. But this issue
needs to be talked about a lot by this Congress.
I have a chart here which sort of demonstrates the problem. Many of
us in the last week have had town hall meetings back in our districts
or have met with senior citizens. We had one in my district, and I
learned or relearned what we have been hearing before.
That is one example of one of my constituents who was traveling in
Europe. Her traveling partner needed to get a prescription refilled.
The prescription here in the United States is $120. The price of having
that prescription filled in Europe for the same drug made in the same
plant by the same company under the same FDA approval was $32.
This person has to take that drug, has to have it refilled every
month, so the savings of about $90 a month times 12 works out to about
$1,000 a year. The differences between what Americans pay and what the
rest of the world pays for the same drugs is just outrageous.
Let us take a drug like Coumadin. My 82-year-old father takes
Coumadin. It is a blood thinner, a very commonly prescribed drug. Here
in the United States, the average price is about $30.25 for a 30-day
supply. That same drug made in the same plant by the same company under
the same FDA approval in Europe sells for only $2.85.
Mr. Speaker, we have a serious problem right now. Part of the problem
is that Americans are paying a disproportionate share of the cost for
research and ultimately I think a disproportionate share of the profits
for the large pharmaceutical companies.
It would be easy for us as a Congress to sit here and blame the
pharmaceutical companies and say, shame on them. But the truth of the
matter is that it is shame on us. It is shame on us for allowing this
to continue. It is shame on our own FDA because, in view of these huge
differentials, we would think that the FDA would be doing something to
help senior citizens and other American consumers.
The fact of the matter is that our own FDA is making matters worse.
These are excerpts from an actual letter sent to a senior citizen, a
very threatening letter that in effect says if they continue to do
this, we believe they may be in violation of Federal law and we may
have to come after them.
If someone is an 82-year-old senior citizen taking Coumadin or
Synthroid or some of these other commonly-prescribed drugs and trying
to save some money by getting them either through Mexico, Canada, or
Europe, the last thing our Federal Government ought to do is threaten
us, especially when those drugs are absolutely legal, they are FDA-
approved, and the problem is the FDA has put the burden of proof on the
consumer.
Finally, I support this legislation or this amendment here today, as
well, because in many respects our Justice Department has failed, as
well. It has failed in its oversight responsibilities to make certain
that there is adequate competition and that there is not collusion
between the large pharmaceutical companies.
It is not just shame on the pharmaceutical companies, it is shame on
us, it is shame on the FDA, it is shame on the Justice Department. It
is time that this Congress sends a very clear message that the game is
over. We are not going to continue to subsidize the
[[Page H5699]]
starving Swiss, we are not going to continue to subsidize the rest of
the world in terms of prescription drugs, especially when our own
seniors have to make very difficult decisions every day in terms of
whether or not they are going to get the prescriptions that they need
or the food they should have.
That is simply wrong, and we should not allow it to continue. I hope
we can pass this amendment tonight to send one more clear message to
the folks at FDA, the folks at Justice, and the people around the world
that the game is over.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
(Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
the Crowley amendment.
{time} 1745
Mr. Chairman, I deeply support the Crowley amendment, and I am glad
to see that many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle also
believe that we need to overturn the current FDA prohibition on U.S.
citizens traveling to other countries to purchase prescription drugs
manufactured in our country solely for individual use.
This important amendment is to decriminalize seniors who travel to
Canada and Mexico for cheaper prescription drugs. I might also add that
I strongly support the bill put forward by the gentleman from Maine
(Mr. Allen) which would make seniors the same preferred customers as
HMOs and also the President's plan to expand Medicare to cover
prescription drugs.
These are all important measures, but this is an important amendment
that addresses the issue of price discrimination being practiced by the
drug manufacturers today.
In my home State of New York, breast cancer medications can cost over
$100 per prescription while they are available in Canada and Mexico to
their residents for a tenth of that price. Many women in our home State
and, indeed, across the country are forced to dilute their
prescriptions that fight breast cancer, to cut their pills in half
because they cannot afford their prescription drugs in order to get by
financially. And many in my home State get on the bus every weekend to
go to Canada to purchase American manufactured drugs because it is
cheaper than in their own country.
Mr. Chairman, this is just plain wrong. No doctor recommends it. No
person deserves this type of treatment. They should be charged, at the
very least, the same that the foreign governments are charging their
citizens.
Recently, I conducted a study on price discrimination on consumers in
the district that I represent which is Manhattan, East and West side,
and Astoria, Queens, and compared the prices that were paid by
consumers in other Nations, Mexico and Canada. I must add I was
assisted in this by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and the
staff of the Committee on Government Reform, and what we found was
absolutely shocking.
We asked them to look at a total of eight drugs and compared the
average costs in my district with the average costs paid by consumers
in Mexico and Canada, and the drugs included in the study were some of
the most widely prescribed drugs today. To take one example, the breast
cancer drug Tamoxifen. Tamoxifen is sold under the brand name of
Nolvadex, and it is the most frequently prescribed breast cancer drug
in this Nation.
It is used by thousands of women across my State, across this Nation,
across the country to treat early and advanced breast cancer. In fact,
in 1998, the total sales of Tamoxifen were over $520 million. Yet women
in this country who need Tamoxifen must pay 10 times what seniors in
Canada pay.
Our studies showed that a 1-month supply of Tamoxifen costs only $9
in Canada, yet it costs over $109 in my district. This means that over
the course of a year, women in my district will pay roughly 1,200 more
than a woman in Canada. That is a price differential of over 10,000
percent.
This is a very important lifesaving drug that thousands of women need
to survive. It is simply outrageous that drug companies are taking
advantage of men and women suffering from this horrible disease.
But Tamoxifen is not the only drug that costs more in New York than
in Canada and probably every other State in our country. In fact, all
eight of the drugs which we studied costs at least 40 percent more in
my district than they do abroad. The average price differential with
Canada was 112 percent; with Mexico, it was 108 percent.
Prilosec, which is the top selling drug in the Nation, it is used for
heartburn and ulcers, in the last 10 years, according to the
manufacturer, more than 120 million prescriptions have been written for
this drug, yet seniors and other consumers in my district they have to
pay over $800 more each year for Prilosec than the consumers in Canada.
Over $1,000 dollars more than seniors in Mexico.
Zocor, which is one of the most common cholesterol-reducing drugs in
this country with over 15 million prescriptions in 1998, costs almost
three times as much in my district as it does in Canada, and that is a
difference of over $70 per month.
I would urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
support the Crowley amendment, it is long overdue, and also the Allen
amendment, the President's plan and others to bring drug fairness into
this country.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New Mexico?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will divide the time evenly between the
proponent of the amendment and the opponent of the amendment. The
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) and the gentleman from New Mexico
(Mr. Skeen) each will control 10 minutes.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Crowley) for his leadership on this important issue. We have
an incredible situation, where those who are least able to pay for the
important prescription medications that they require, our uninsured
seniors and uninsured families, in fact, of all ages across the
country, are asked to pay the highest prices for their prescription
medications of any place in the entire world.
This burden has been imposed on those least able to pay and the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) has come forward with a
constructive proposal that will at least benefit those, who are near
the Canadian and Mexican borders, since Canada does not impose price
discrimination.
I think it is, however, very important to recognize that while Canada
does not encourage price discrimination, this House has encouraged
price discrimination. I have on two separate occasions with my
colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) advanced before
the Committee on Ways and Means proposals that would permit seniors,
not just to get on a bus to Canada or Mexico, but would allow them in
their own neighborhood pharmacy to get prescription medications, as the
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) has proposed, at the price that the
pharmaceutical companies make those available to their most favored
customers.
Unfortunately, every single Republican on the Committee on Ways and
Means has joined with the pharmaceutical industry in saying no, in
saying that it is right to continue charging our seniors, who are
uninsured, more than anyone else in the world. So I applaud the effort
of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), but by blocking our
proposal in committee, by blocking the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen)
when he offered the proposal last week, as Republicans presented not a
Medicare prescription drug plan, but a political ploy here on the eve
of the election, seniors have been denied the relief that they so
desperately need. And this House has been denied the opportunity to
extend to all Americans what the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley)
would tonight extend at least to those near the Canadian and Mexican
borders to gain access to bring more reasonably priced medications.
[[Page H5700]]
Last week, I joined with some seniors in central Texas to explore
this issue of at all places, the Austin Humane Society. I learned
through a study that we conducted that in this country if you have four
legs and a tail and need a particular prescription drug, if you can say
meow or woof or arf, you get a much better deal on prescriptions than
if you are simply a senior, who is in serious need of medication.
I know that the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) and others have made
similar findings in other parts of the country. We demonstrated that on
one very important arthritis drug, Lodine, for example, that the
manufacturer is charging 188 percent more to those who would use the
exact same quality and quantity for animals, for a dog, a cat or a
horse or a cow, than it does for a senior, who lacks insurance.
I think that such price discrimination is wrong, the kind of
discrimination that says it is okay for the same quality and quantity
and type of drugs for manufacturers price to charge the wholesaler 188
percent more than for an individual, a senior, who is in need of that
drug. That is the kind of price discrimination that groups masquerading
under names like Citizens for Better Medicare, which really is a front
for the pharmaceutical industry, are imposing on us.
Tonight the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) proposes that we do
just a little bit about it, and I encourage the House to adopt his
approach, but hope that eventually we can move on to a broader proposal
like that advanced by the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
Mr. Chairman, I certainly understand the concerns of my colleague
from New York (Mr. Crowley), and I do not feel that a restriction on a
regulatory agency is the way to achieve prescription drug price reform.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Crowley) for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to speak in favor of the amendment, and I do
so with the greatest respect, of course, to the committee upon which I
serve. But if we look at the seniors who are having to go across the
border to get prescription drugs and other people who need it, they are
not doing this because it is convenient, they are not doing it because
they want to, they are not doing it because they want to support a
Canadian pharmacy. They are doing it because they have to economically.
My dad is from Buffalo, New York, and I went to school in Michigan,
and I know on those border States there is a lot of economic overlap
and social overlap and everything else, and so for them to go to Canada
to get cheaper drugs is not that unusual. But then imagine being 82
years old and getting a letter like this that says, however, future
shipments of these or similar drugs may be refused admissions; that is
very disturbing if we have to take something for high cholesterol or
something for a heart condition. What am I doing?
These people are World War II veterans. They do not want to go around
breaking the law, and that is what the implication is from FDA once
they get it.
Mr. Chairman, look at these price differences. I think we cannot
expect people who can save as much as 50 percent on a drug not to take
advantage of it and to go overseas. But the second question about this
is why are the drugs so less expensive in Canada than they are here,
and I think that is where it becomes a universal quest for States that
are not on the border. I mean, we need to know how come we can get
Prozac for $18.50 and over here, it is $36. For Claritin, $44 versus
$8.75. Prilosec, $109 versus $39.25.
We owe it to our constituents. Even if they are in Iowa, in the
middle of the country geographically, if we are in a central State,
domestically, in the United States of America, we would still need to
know and we need to be able to tell our constituents why these drug
prices are so different.
That is why I am supporting this amendment. I think, number one, we
have to give people on the border States an opportunity; number two, we
have to explore what are these differences, and this will help promote
that debate.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Minge).
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that is before us this
afternoon brings in the sharp relief the anomaly that exists with
respect to the cost of prescription drugs in North America. It simply
is unconscionable that if we travel to Mexico or to Canada we can buy
prescription drugs for dramatically less than we can here within the
United States.
It is unacceptable that seniors, who are the most vulnerable, who
have the least in terms of resources to pay for these prescription
drugs are the ones that are victimized to the greatest extent by this
situation.
It is also an irony that is not lost on the seniors in this country
that their pets can access these same prescription drugs for
dramatically less than they can.
{time} 1800
Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the comments of
my colleagues from both sides of the aisle that have spoken in favor of
the Crowley amendment, and I urge that all of our colleagues join in
supporting this amendment to the appropriations bill.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) has 3 minutes
remaining.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, as the sponsor of this amendment, let me say that I am
somewhat surprised at the support that this amendment has received from
the other side of the aisle. I am astounded, quite frankly. I
appreciate the support of many of the individuals who have spoken to
me, some of whom are friends of mine from the other side of the aisle.
I appreciate their comments on the floor. In no way do I believe that
they are not being sincere at this point in time.
But just under 2 weeks ago, we stood here on this floor; and we
passed a bill that I call to the floor a sham; and I continue to call
that bill a sham.
The amendment that my colleagues have before them today is really of
very little consequence, and I am the sponsor of this amendment. It
basically takes away the authority of the FDA to prosecute any
individual who reimports drugs that were made in this country. But it
really is an attempt to shine a light on price discrimination in the
United States.
But what this amendment does show, Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, is
the hypocrisy of this House at times. In 1 week we can pass a sham of a
bill, and a week and a half later, come back and pass an amendment that
in and of itself will not go far enough to help most of the seniors in
this country who are not insured, seniors who struggle on a weekly
basis to pay rent, to pay their bills.
My constituent from Jackson Heights, Ann Greenbaum, pays $300 for a
particular drug that her son needs, the exact same drug, and pays $15
under his plan. I will not say how old Mrs. Greenbaum is. She is
considerably older than her son. These are the individuals we are
trying to help.
My amendment, Mr. Chairman, will not help directly Ms. Greenbaum.
What it does do, though, is highlight the hypocrisy of this House, how
we can pass a bill that will not help the Mrs. Greenbaums of the world,
will help some individuals, but certainly will not help enough.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 538, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley)
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 52 Offered by Mr. Royce
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
[[Page H5701]]
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 52 offered by Mr. Royce:
Strike section 741.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) reserves a
point of order.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, the rationale behind this amendment is
simple. Hard-working taxpayers should not have to subsidize the
advertising costs of America's private corporations. In my view, that
is what the Market Access Program does.
Since 1986, the Federal Government has extracted $2 billion from the
tax-paying public and has spent it for advertising on the part of
larger corporations and cooperatives in subsidies to basically
underwrite their marketing programs in foreign countries.
I think the American people would agree that their money could be
better spent on deficit reduction or education or the environment or
tax cuts rather than these advertising budgets.
Originally, this bill contained a provision quietly inserted that
would have allowed American tax dollars to be spent promoting the sale
of luxury mink products in foreign countries. However, once we
discovered their plan to expand eligibility in the MAP program,
proponents reversed the course and agreed to strike the provision in
the bill.
But an important question remains, if it is wrong to spend hard-
earned American tax dollars on the promotion of mink products, why is
it acceptable to spend those same tax dollars overseas to promote other
products?
Last April, the GAO released an independent report, a report that was
requested by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and myself and
Senator Schumer. That report questioned the economic benefits of the
foreign agricultural service study, which had advanced the arguments to
begin with in the favor of this bill.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from California yield
for a parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. ROYCE. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, what amendment are we debating?
Mr. ROYCE. Amendment number 52 to eliminate the Market Access
Program.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is correct.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would just like to
share that in the report the GAO determined that the Foreign
Agricultural Service overstated the program's economic input, used a
faulty methodology, which is inconsistent with Office of Management and
Budget cost benefit guidelines.
The GAO also determined that the evidence contained within the
relevant studies which estimate MAP's impact on specific markets is
inconclusive. In fact, for every targeted market in which MAP funds
demonstrated a positive effect, the studies found other target markets
in which there was no discernible effect at all.
So various studies commissioned by Congress, commissioned by the
Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee have determined the economic
benefits of the MAP program to be overstated, to be inconclusive, and
to be speculative.
But even if one does believe the flawed studies used by the
proponents, one has all the more reasons to support the amendment.
Because if MAP works, then corporations and trade associations ought to
be spending their own money on their advertising budgets. The taxpayers
should not be spending it.
Finally, MAP proponents have argued that due to recent reforms, big
corporations no longer receive MAP funds. It is true that, in order to
correct some of the more egregious abuses of the Market Access Program
of which we pointed out in the past, reforms were enacted that limit
companies to 5 years of assistance in a particular country. After this
time, companies were to be graduated from that country's market.
While in fact some of the corporations were graduated in 1998, the
graduation requirements were waived for cooperatives. What was the
result of that waiver? The result was that large corporations received
the subsidies.
We simply do not need this wasteful program. Let us be honest. Most
American businesses do not benefit and do not try to take advantage of
government handouts like MAP. In the case of MAP, as in most corporate
welfare programs, beneficiaries consist primarily of politically well-
connected corporations and trade associations.
Most, if not all of these organizations, would advertise their
products overseas even without MAP funds, and they probably would work
much harder to ensure that the money is well spent.
Mr. Chairman, Congress should end the practice of wasting tax dollars
on special interest spending programs that unfairly take money from
hard-working families to help profitable private companies increase
their bottom line.
MAP is a massive corporate welfare program in my opinion, and we
should eliminate it. I urge the support of the amendment.
Point of Order
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) insist
on his point of order?
Mr. SKEEN. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair finds that the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) proposes to strike from the bill
a section already stricken on a point of order and, therefore, the
amendment is not in order.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, my question to the parliamentarian was
whether offering amendment No. 51 or No. 52 would be in order. I
believe he said 52. If I understand correctly, then the answer would
have been No. 51.
It is amendment No. 51 that could be offered.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) has the
apologies of the Chair. In fact, the gentleman would be correct in
offering amendment No. 51.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, that being the case, that concludes my
opening arguments on amendment No. 51.
Amendment No. 51 Offered by Mr. Royce
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will entertain the offer of the gentleman
from California (Mr. Royce).
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate amendment No. 51.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 51 offered by Mr. Royce:
Page 96, after line 4, insert the following:
TITLE IX--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 901. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used to award any new
allocations under the market access program or to pay the
salaries of personnel to award such allocations.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, this is a near-annual amendment, so I will not speak at
length.
For many small companies in the United States, this program is the
only way they have of promoting their products in markets overseas.
Small companies cannot afford sophisticated marketing campaigns or
presence overseas. The Market Access Program helps them reach those
markets, increase their sales, increase employment, and, ultimately,
benefit the farmers and ranchers that produce the raw materials.
I would also add, Mr. Chairman, that our competitors in Europe are
spending far more than the authorized $90 million a year that the
Market Access Program provides.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote
``no.''
Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment also.
I think, as the distinguished gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman
Skeen) has said, the Market Access Program is a program that comes
under attack every year in this appropriations process. But yet the
Market Access Program is designed to help small and independents
producers, small businesses get into foreign markets.
This Congress basically has said to our agricultural producers that
the savior for your future is foreign markets. But, yet, we are
unwilling, we
[[Page H5702]]
make an attempt on an annual basis to eliminate a program which helps
small businesses and agricultural producers get into those markets.
Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) quoted
some report. I would like to read from a report that was done by
Deloitte and Touche, who was hired by the National Association of State
Departments of Agriculture to evaluate MAP. I quote, ``MAP is a
significant source of support for new companies and new products
entering foreign markets. MAP support is also beneficial to small firms
as they begin to export. Our cases suggest that, without MAP support,
many small firms would not be capable of carrying out standard
marketing programs in key foreign markets.''
Mr. Chairman, I encourage the Members to defeat the amendment.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The MAP
program is something that works. It not only enables our products to be
sold overseas and to be promoted over there, but we have to keep in
mind that any dollar spent in the MAP program are matched by the
commodity groups themselves. So if one is a pork producer, one puts
one's dollars in the program. If one is a corn or soybean producer or
beef producer or rice, whatever product it is, one has to match those
funds.
It is extraordinarily important that we maintain the market access
and to promote our products overseas and to show the world the quality
products that we have in America and to find markets for our products
overseas.
The MAP program in years past had some problems with it. It has been
reformed. It is not putting any particular hamburger brand or something
promoting those type of products overseas. These are commodities that
are being promoted overseas. It is extraordinarily important that we
maintain this program.
I would just like to say also, the gentleman on an earlier amendment
talked about the assistance that is needed for agriculture and the
payments and the emergencies and all of that. Well, this will go
farther to help us avoid those types of problems in the future than
probably any other program. At a time when especially in the Southeast
Asian market where they are recovering, we need to be there promoting
American agricultural products so that we can regain the share of
market that was lost before when they went through their financial
crisis.
So just in closing, Mr. Chairman, I would strongly urge Members to
defeat this amendment. It is very important for American agriculture to
maintain this very small assistance for our farmers.
{time} 1815
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Royce amendment. The
Market Access Program, or MAP, is a valuable program and it serves our
Nation's agricultural growers and our producers well. MAP has been a
tremendous asset in opening overseas markets and keeping U.S.
agricultural exports competitive in the world market. They do not play
on an even playing field without the help of MAP.
As many of my colleagues know, I am privileged to represent Sonoma
and Marin Counties, one of our Nation's premier wine-making regions of
the country; and the wine industry is vital to my area. But it is not
just vital to the people I work for in my congressional district, it is
also vital to the entire State of California. In fact, California
produces more than 90 percent of the United States' wine exports.
While our wine speaks for itself, we still need help crossing the
borders. The same is true with fruits and almonds and the many other
products where the U.S. excels. We also face uneven trade barriers
around the globe with these products, and we need assistance from USDA.
This assistance is very important.
This is why I am a steadfast enthusiastic supporter of this program.
I regret that the program has been a perennial target for budgetary
cuts, but I am very pleased that Congress each time, time and again,
has understood the worthiness of this program and has, in their wisdom,
continued to fund the MAP program.
I urge my colleagues to continue its support for the Market Access
Program and to vote against the Royce amendment.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, we face challenges in this country if we are to
maintain a strong agricultural industry. The challenge right now is
that other countries are doing better than we are helping their
farmers. As much as this country works to operate this particular
program of marketing help to get the word out of the quality of our
products and the price of our products, our appropriations are flat and
we are losing ground with other countries.
For example, I would call to the attention for the gentleman from
California that the European Union spends $92 million more than we do.
Twice as much! The Cairns Group, countries of Australia, Canada, New
Zealand, Brazil and others spend $306 million more than we do. So
imagine, not only are countries such as the E.U. spending more than the
United States in their so-called MAP program, in their effort to
enhance marketing and promote their farmers' products, they are
subsidizing their farmers up to five times as much as we do.
So on the one hand they are subsidizing their farmers to reduce the
price they must charge for their exports and additionally they spend
more on promotion--Huge competition for our American farmers, and in
effect right now with the disastrous situation for farmers and ranchers
in this country, it will put many of our farmers out of business.
Again, not only are those countries subsidizing heavily to reduce their
costs, but also they are spending much more than we are, double what we
are, for example in Europe, to market their particular products at this
lower subsidized price.
We have to make a decision in this country whether we are going to
keep a strong ag industry in the United States. I think we should! This
amendment should be defeated.
The export decline of the past several years has been harsh for
America's farmers and ranchers, as well as for policy makers trying to
address their concerns. While our export programs will never be a
substitute for strong global markets and good agricultural policy we
must ensure that the programs we administer are effective and
efficient.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I do not claim to be from an agriculture rich district.
In Brooklyn and Queens we do not grow all that much, or at least all
that much that is addressed here in this bill, but I can tell my
colleagues that I have been someone who has supported agriculture bills
in this House because I recognize that there is a confluence of
interest that exists. But just the same way frequently those of us who
advocate for urban programs are called to task to defend some things in
the bills that we support that often are troublesome, such is the case
here for my friends who support agriculture spending.
Just so it is clear to those who are watching this debate, who are
not as familiar with agriculture programs, like I am, this is
essentially a program that pays for advertising for some of the biggest
corporations in the United States. In the life of this program, to give
some sense of context to this, McDonald's has received over $7 million.
The Sunkist Corporation received nearly $7 million. Ernest and Julio
Gallo received $5 million of taxpayer money to help, in essence,
advertize their products overseas.
The argument that has been made a couple of times on this floor is,
listen, we have to do it because there are those in other countries who
are paying to subsidize their products and advertize them as well.
Well, we are not in other countries. We do not represent the taxpayers
in those countries, and we can argue the efficacy of doing that at
another time. But the question we have to ask is, is this the wisest
way for us to form coalitions behind agriculture programs and help
family farmers that we have heard so much about on the floor this past
couple of weeks.
Is the Pillsbury Corporation, the Wrangler Corporation, Burger King,
[[Page H5703]]
Campbell Soup, General Mills, Hershey Foods, are these companies that
really need our help with their advertising budget?
This is an amendment, and I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Chabot) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) for offering it,
this is an amendment that simply says let us have a strong agriculture
policy. Let us have an agriculture policy that helps our farmers stay
in business, that helps those of us in urban areas to continue to
thrive because the agriculture sector is doing as well as possible. Let
us try to help people from the bottom up.
This is a classic case of going into the corporate boardrooms and
saying here is a bag of money because that is essentially what the MAP
program is. If my colleagues think that Tyson Food needs some help,
then the MAP program is good; if my colleagues think the Ocean Spray
Cranberries Company needs some help, then the MAP program is probably
one my colleagues would support.
In order to ensure that we are able to keep these coalitions together
that help agriculture bills and help other bills pass, we have to weed
out, no pun intended, some of the things that are truly weak in these
programs, and this is such a case. I would urge my colleagues to
support this reduction in the MAP program.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 10 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New Mexico?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will divide the time equally between the
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) proponent of the amendment, and
an opponent of the amendment, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr.
Skeen). The gentleman from California will control 5 minutes and the
gentleman from New Mexico will control 5 minutes.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Latham).
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to clarify something that was
just previously said.
McDonald's does not get a dime of money, Tyson Food does not get a
dime of money, the Sunkist Corporation does not get a dime of money.
That is old news. As I mentioned earlier, this has been reformed.
The only thing we are promoting here are the products themselves. No
brand names. No corporate brand names. So that argument is totally
bogus. I want every Member to understand that. This promotion goes to
promote pork, to promote eggs, to promote beef, soybeans, corn,
whatever.
There is no McDonald's, there is no Sunkist, there is no Tyson. And
for someone to say that is totally erroneous, and I want to just
clarify that for the House.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much
for yielding me this time.
Before anyone votes for this amendment, think what is going on in
America. This is the harvest season. This is time we celebrate. People
are eating corn on the cob, having back-yard barbecues, watermelons are
being eaten. This is the is time we are celebrating county fairs all
over the United States. We celebrate agriculture, our number one
industry.
Our number one industry needs to find markets. We grow more food in
the United States than we can consume. If we are going to keep the
prices of agriculture low (and frankly I think in many cases they are
too low), we need to keep the markets open for growers to be able to
sell their crops.
So my colleagues, before voting for this amendment, which is a bad
amendment, wake up and smell the coffee. Every time we watch television
and we see Juan Valdez telling us to buy Colombian coffee, not to buy a
particular brand but to buy Colombian coffee, that is market promotion.
We see wine industries in Italy trying to sell us Italian wine. That is
market promotion.
American consumers are being sold by market promotion by foreign
competitors all the time and we do not realize that we need to do the
same for our crops in this global market. So wake up and smell that
coffee. Strike down this amendment. It is a bad amendment precisely
because it will not allow the small businesses, that this bill
emphasizes, to be able to take advantage of this expanded program. Not
those large corporations, which was falsely stated, that use to get a
lot of the market promotion. That stuff was struck out in 1998.
This market promotion helps keep agriculture viable in the United
States. It is absolutely essential that we keep our markets open. And
we have a trade surplus. That we keep this all in the black. So let us
keep America strong, keep agriculture strong, and strike down this
amendment. Thank you.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
this amendment.
I am very aware of the problems facing the agricultural economy. It
is abundantly clear that the prosperity of our economy as a whole does
not extend to our farmers and ranchers. Although agricultural
producers' problems are as diverse as the crops they grow, there is one
point on which they all agree--the need for more export markets. There
is no question that exports are already vital to the health of the
agriculture sector. Approximately one-third of all the harvested
acreage in the United States is exported, and 62 percent of these
exports are of high value products. Is it any wonder then that farmers
and ranchers suffer when exports decrease, as they have in recent
years, falling from $60 billion in 1996 to $49 billion last year?
Fortunately, we have effective tools at our disposal to enhance our
nation's agricultural exports. The Market Access Program (MAP) is a
program that works--and works well--without distorting world markets
through export subsidies. How? By providing matching funds for
commodity groups and small businesses to conduct market research,
technical assistance, trade servicing, advertising and consumer
promotions abroad. The American farmer produces some of the highest
quality food products in the world, but we can't assume that every
international consumer knows about them. MAP helps fill this education
gap and allow our producers to create the new export opportunities so
sorely needed by growers and processors.
A prime example of how these programs work to benefit agricultural
producers took place in my district earlier this month. The National
Potato Promotion Board and the Washington State Potato Commission
sponsored a tour and a series of briefings on processed potato
products, and dehydrated potatoes in particular, for food industry
research and development executives from the Philippines, China, Korea,
Japan, and Mexico. These representatives learned about American potato
products and how they can be used in consumer products abroad. This
tour, partially funded by MAP dollars, will likely result in new
opportunities to export value-added agricultural products.
I believe that it is simple common sense to support this kind of
successful promotion effort. That is why I introduced legislation to
increase funding for MAP and the Foreign Market Development Program
(FMDP) earlier this year. This legislation, H.R. 3593, the
``Agricultural Market Access and Development Act,'' authorizes the
Secretary of Agriculture to spend up to $200 million--but not less than
the current $90 million--on MAP. Likewise, the bill requires that a
minimum of $35 million be spent on the promotion of U.S. bulk
commodities overseas through FMDP.
These increases are funded using unspent funds for the Export
Enhancement Program (EEP), usually around $500 million per year. EEP
promotes U.S. exports through direct subsidies and is therefore subject
to Uruguay Round restrictions and slated for reduction.
Right now, foreign countries directly subsidize their agricultural
exports and spend far more than the U.S. does each year promoting their
products abroad. MAP and FMDP are the only programs that give our
farmers and ranchers the chance to compete on a level playing field
worldwide.
These are proven and effective programs--and they are good for our
producers. It's time to expand MAP and FMDP so that more growers can
benefit from export opportunities.
Mr. Chairman, for these reasons I rise in strong opposition to my
friend's amendment to cut funding for the Market Access Program. We
must work to open up opportunities to our farmers, not hamstring
efforts to ensure agriculture success and independence. I urge my
[[Page H5704]]
colleagues to vote no on this amendment and support a level playing
field for American agriculture in the world market.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge).
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) is recognized
for 2 minutes.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
I certainly share with my colleague from California who introduced
this amendment a level of discomfort with the market promotion program,
the way it was structured several years ago. I think all of us in this
body did. But the fact of the matter is the program has been adjusted.
The most difficult to justify portions of the program have been
eliminated, and what we are left with is generally a program that is
promoting American agricultural products in foreign markets in a way
that benefits farmers as opposed to benefiting corporate America.
I visited some of these offices, particularly in Japan. I have seen
the men and the women that work for the Federal Government and work for
some of the commodity groups present their material to the public in
those countries, and I know that what they are doing is introducing
American agricultural products to foreign consumers to build markets
for American agricultural products, to open new opportunities for
farmers in the United States, and I urge my colleagues to join in
supporting this program.
There is no sector of the American economy that is more troubled than
farming. We need to make sure that we explore every opportunity for
America's farmers, not slam the door shut at this point in our economic
history.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, the Market Access Program is the leftover product of
two previously failed USDA programs, the Market Promotion Program and
the Targeted Export Assistance Program, and MAP funnels tax dollars to
corporate trade associations and cooperatives to advertise private
products overseas.
Now, let me reiterate my position here. I think advertising is a
function of the private sector, not of the taxpayers. While proponents
of the program claim that it boosts exports, claims that it creates
jobs, there is no evidence to support it. General Accounting Office
studies indicate that this program has no discernible effect on U.S.
agricultural exports. The private sector knows how to advertise. It
does not need government interference. Taxpayer dollars merely replace
money that would be spent by private companies on their own
advertising.
Provisions in the 1996 farm bill have attempted to reform MAP, but
thus far have failed. The GAO audit and other audits find it
overstated, inconclusive, and speculative in terms of its effect.
{time} 1830
Although the percentage of large companies that get MAP money have
decreased, a number of corporations still receive millions of dollars
indirectly through trade associations. The studies show that about
three-quarters of the money indirectly benefits these corporations.
Under this year's bill, an attempt also was made to expand MAP.
Fortunately, this provision was stricken; and now we go to the question
of the program itself. I believe it is now time to end the program.
In the last 10 years, American taxpayers have shelled out $1 billion
for this subsidy. I think the American people would agree that their
money could be better spent, and I urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Royce
amendment to eliminate the Market Access Program (MAP).
Several weeks ago, the House passed legislation to grant PNTR to
China. One of the best arguments for PNTR is that it will grant U.S.
producers access to the Chinese market, much of which has been closed
for too many years.
MAP is the program that will help U.S. producers--not large
agribusinesses--gain that access. Exporting is a challenge, even for
the most experienced. Many individual producers and small companies
find it difficult to break into it and to be competitive
internationally. MAP helps our producers, primarily through grants to
state departments of agriculture, to overcome these hurdles by
partially funding international market research and trade missions to
foreign countries.
Access to the Chinese market does us no good if we can't take
advantage of it. MAP will help our producers develop it and become
better at international trade and marketing. Reject this short-sighted
amendment. Support MAP.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that,
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 538, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce)
will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, in full committee I offered an amendment to deal with
the concentration of economic power in the processing industry in this
country. We cannot offer that amendment on the floor because of budget
limitations, but I want to make clear that before this bill returns
from conference, it ought to do a number of things.
I wanted to add funding for the Grain Inspection Packers and
Stockyards Administration, for instance, and to the Agriculture
Department's Office of General Counsel to bring both accounts up to the
amount requested by the President. The reason that I wanted to do that
is very simple: we can throw all the money in the world that we want to
at farm programs, but unless we deal with the fact that the agriculture
industry is largely dominated by oligopolies, we are not going to do
very much to help either the consumer or the farmer in the process.
There are four companies that now control 81 percent of cattle
purchases, beef processing and wholesale marketing, and in only 5 years
we have seen the margin between the price paid to farmers and wholesale
price of beef jump by 24 percent. It just doesn't apply to the beef
industry.
If you look at the pork market, four companies now control 56 percent
of the pork market, and the margin between the wholesale price of pork
and the price paid to the farmer has jumped by more than 50 percent.
We have had a continuous consolidation in the grain industry and in
the dairy industry and an amazing concentration of economic power in
the poultry industry, where giant corporations such as Perdue and
Tyson's are not only squeezing farmers, but also abusing workers and
wreaking havoc on the environment in the process.
To really address these problems, it seems to me we need substantive
legislation, for example to grant the Agriculture Department authority
to review mergers and acquisitions affecting farming and food, and we
need to do a variety of other things. That, obviously, is beyond the
scope of this bill. But this bill, for instance, in addition to the
other funding shortfalls that I have discussed, also has a serious
shortfall in the Office of General Counsel. We need to correct those
problems when this bill comes back from conference.
As I say, we are precluded from offering an amendment to do anything
major on this right now because of the Budget Act, but it is my full
intention to see to it that when we go to conference, this matter is
corrected; because until we do correct it, the consumers are going to
continue to get euchred by the situation, and so will virtually every
small farmer in America.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, as you may know, I have an amendment at the desk. I
rise to explain why I will not be offering that amendment.
Mr. Chairman, that amendment deals with the provisions of this bill
which provide funds for the inspection and facilitation of agricultural
imports, particularly those from the Islamic Republic of Iran. In March
of this year the administration lifted our ban on imports from Iran as
to four products, three of them agricultural products; and I believe
that lifting this ban may have been the result of undue optimism, or at
least premature optimism.
[[Page H5705]]
The rhetoric in Tehran has improved, but the actions of the Iranian
government have not. A year and a half ago, 13 Jews were arrested in
the southern Iranian city of Shiraz. They have been subjected to show
trials. Ten have been convicted. The average sentence is 9 years. Some
of the sentences go up to 13 years.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, I drafted an amendment that would say that
those three agricultural imports cannot come into this country, or at
least none of our taxpayer dollars could be used for the necessary
inspection.
But just as I believe the lifting of the ban on those imports may
have reflected premature optimism, I do not want to be guilty of
premature pessimism. It is quite possible, I think, that the Iranian
president or their appellate court system will in the next few weeks
vacate those verdicts, or at least release the prisoners. So I think it
is best that I not offer this amendment, especially because this
amendment, if adopted, would lock us into a particular position for an
entire fiscal year; and it would deny the use of those funds to
facilitate imports from Iran for the entire fiscal year.
Instead, I think it better that I will join with others in
introducing legislation that will provide for a ban on all Iranian
exports to the United States, agricultural and non-agricultural, until
such time as the President of the U.S. is able to certify that the
Iranian government has made substantial improvements in the treatment
of its religious minorities.
Mr. Chairman, the charges against the 13 jailed in Shiraz were
absurd, since no Jew in Iran is allowed to come anywhere near anything
of military or security significance.
Mr. Chairman, the trials were reminiscent of those of Joseph Stalin,
show trials with forced confessions, no evidence and very little
specificity to the charges; and the verdicts were harsh, 10 convictions
subjecting the defendants to a total of 89 years in prison.
Many governments around the world have said that these trials are the
yardstick by which Iran must be judged as to whether it has made
improvements in human rights and whether it has made improvements in
treating its religious minorities. Clearly, Iran has not yet improved
its behavior, even as there has been hopeful rhetoric.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that we should adopt the slogan ``no justice,
no caviar.'' We should certainly not allow the import of caviar,
pistachios, dried fruit, or carpets into this country until justice is
achieved.
Not only is a ban on the imports to the United States from Iran
helpful in that it applies some pressure economically to Iran, it is
also the strongest way that we can signal our position and puts us in a
stronger position to deal with other countries: Germany, where the
Iranian foreign minister is visiting today; Japan, which,
unfortunately, is funding hydroelectric facilities in Iran; and the
World Bank, which, unfortunately, approved, but did not yet disburse, a
loan of $231 million.
So, Mr. Chairman, my hope is that this amendment will turn out to be
unnecessary; that the authorities in Iran will reverse the decision of
the trial court, or at least pardon the defendants. If that does not
occur, then we will be in the position to move with a separate bill
that will allow more flexibility and a greater scope than is allowed in
an amendment to an appropriations bill. A separate bill will apply to
non-agricultural goods, as well as agricultural goods, and provide the
flexibility of a presidential certification.
In addition, I would hope that if a month from now these obscenely
harsh verdicts are not reversed, that the conference committee will see
fit to add my amendment to this Agricultural Appropriations bill before
it comes back to this House.
So that explains, why, Mr. Chairman, I will not be offering my
amendment.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the
purpose of entering into a colloquy with the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Agriculture of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. Chairman, I want to bring to your attention the fire blight
problem which destroyed many apple and pear crops in Michigan. While
back home this past week, I personally saw the devastation in literally
orchard after orchard along the road.
In May, a severe disaster struck Michigan, all but destroying the
apple and pear crops in this highly intensive agriculture region. In
addition to extremely wet, warm, and humid weather conditions
throughout the month, a severe thunderstorm passed over southwest
Michigan in May, causing severe damage to fruit trees and fruit crops.
The thunderstorm's hail, high wind, and heavy rain scarred and wounded
the leaves, limbs and fruit on the trees. In the case of apple and pear
trees, these wounds provided an avenue for the fire blight to enter the
trees, causing severe and widespread disease.
The result is that nearly 7,650 acres of the 17,000 acres of apple
trees in this region have been severely affected by fire blight. Some
of the remaining 9,000-some acres are affected as well, depending upon
apple variety; but the trees are expected to recover in future years.
Of the acreage severely affected, we suspect that nearly some 2,000
acres of apple trees will, in fact, die. The remainder may be saved,
but their production in the future will certainly be significantly
reduced.
My governor, Governor Engler, in conjunction with myself, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Ehlers), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), and Senator
Abraham have requested Secretary Glickman to designate the affected
counties in Michigan as a disaster area, which should help to some
degree.
However, more must be done. I am pleased to report that Senator
Abraham in the other body is working with his colleagues to provide
some additional funds for relief as this body considers the fiscal year
2001 agriculture appropriation bill.
I would ask the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) that as
this bill moves through the legislative process that the gentleman work
with our colleagues in the other body to provide much-needed relief to
growers in southwest Michigan whose crops have been devastated by this
fire blight.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. UPTON. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his
attention to this important issue. I give him my assurance that as this
bill moves through the legislative process, I will do all that I can to
work with the other body to provide much needed funding for the growers
in southwest Michigan whose crops have been devastated by fire blight.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
for his assurance, and I look forward to working with him in the future
to make sure that we get needed assistance back to our growers in the
Midwest.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Coburn
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Coburn:
Insert before the short title the following title:
TITLE IX--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 901. None of the amounts made available in this Act
for the Food and Drug Administration may be expended to take
any action (administrative or otherwise) to interfere with
the importation into the United States of drugs that have
been approved for use within the United States and were
manufactured in an FDA-approved facility in the United
States, Canada, or Mexico.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that time for
debate on this amendment be limited to 10 minutes in opposition and 10
minutes in favor.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) will control
10 minutes, and a Member opposed to the amendment will control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to thank the gentleman from Maine
(Mr. Baldacci), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), and
several others for their work in this area.
[[Page H5706]]
All this bill says is we are not going to intimidate seniors who are
following the law, following NAFTA, and bringing drugs into this
country from Canada or Mexico, as long as those are approved drugs and
they have been manufactured in FDA-approved facilities.
Mr. Chairman, we have debated this issue to a great extent. All this
amendment will do is say ``hands off, FDA'' on legal and qualified
manufactured products. It does not have anything to do with limiting
their ability on safety; it does not apply to anything but a legal
drug. So that means my patients who now are trying to get their drugs
from Canada, from Oklahoma, can in fact have a prescription mailed to
Canada or Mexico and have it filled and shipped across the border, and
the FDA cannot intimidate them and say they cannot do that. That is all
we are talking about, drugs that are manufactured in this country and
manufactured in FDA-approved facilities that are legal drugs.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there a Member that rises in opposition to the
amendment?
If not, does the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) yield time?
{time} 1915
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Maine (Mr. Baldacci).
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for
his leadership in this area and his knowledge and the way he has been
able to work together in a bipartisan fashion to get this issue
addressed.
This is a very important issue to the State of Maine which borders
Canada and which sees its citizens go regularly across the border in
frustration as to why those same particular medicines cost so much less
than they do in their own country. Recognizing that, the pharmaceutical
industry, which I do not intend to vilify, has only said that they
charge whatever the market will bear. I recognize, and this amendment
recognizes, that many American citizens cannot bear what the
pharmaceuticals are charging.
Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment to
be able to send a message that this is not an acceptable practice. We
are watching many of our seniors have to split their drugs in half or
not take them at all because they cannot afford them and they can go
right across the border for the same drug that is manufactured in this
country at a third or a fourth of the price, and only recognizing that
it is the companies, in charging what they are charging, that is the
differential between what they are paying and what the counterparts
across the border will pay. We must ensure that the taxpayers who are
providing the basic research at NIH and other research facilities,
building the elemental research which the pharmaceutical industry
builds upon those tax dollars, that the taxpayers of the United States
have an opportunity to access in an affordable fashion.
Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman for his leadership in working
together in a bipartisan fashion to address this issue and many other
Members that are working on this issue, in the final analysis, to make
sure that at the end of the day, the seniors have affordable,
accessible prescription medicines so that they do not have to worry
about the quality of their life and be able to be independent and live
out their lives in a quality environment.
I support the amendment.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
(Mr. BASS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this pending
amendment which would do more than any single action to lower the
prices in this country for prescription medications.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Coburn) yield?
Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would ask very simple questions of those
who have drafted this amendment and are offering it. Do the gentlemen
wish to do anything in this amendment that would lessen the inspection
that the FDA does of drugs that may be manufactured or sold in another
country and used by U.S. citizens? I want to understand the full intent
of the amendment, because when the FDA Commissioner came before our
subcommittee and I asked the question about drugs from other countries,
she said that they could not give certainty that they were of equal
quality.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the drugs that are
produced in FDA-approved facilities, they do assure at this time that
they are made to the same standard as the drugs that are made in this
country. Otherwise, they would not have their approved labeling from
the FDA, and that is true in all FDA-approved facilities.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the
clarification.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to discuss a
little bit about this problem.
We spent 2 weeks ago talking about the crisis in the pharmaceutical
industry as far as our seniors in getting drugs. It is not just our
seniors; it is everybody in this country is paying too much for drugs.
There are five things that could happen tomorrow to lower the price for
prescription drugs in this country. This is a small step that would
help. It is not even one of the major ones.
The number one thing is to have a competitive market for prices in
this country. We believe in free enterprise; there is not free
enterprise in the pharmaceutical industry right now. All one has to do
is look at the FTC Web site. There is documented collusion. We need to
address that.
Number two, our President needs to stand up and bully pulpit the
pharmaceutical industry's prices. We do not need price controls. We
need competition. Competition allocates scarce resources better than
any type of price control ever will. What we need is real competition.
Ms. Reno has received a letter signed by me asking for an investigation
of which as of today, now, 4 weeks later, there has been no response on
the documented areas of collusion within the drug industry.
Number three, doctors need to do a better job giving generics to
seniors, and they are not.
Finally, number four, the pharmaceutical companies are not all bad.
They do a lot of good things. There are private, indigent programs in
the pharmaceutical industry that the health professions need to
utilize. They will supply their drugs.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Maine (Mr. Baldacci).
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci) is recognized
for 4 minutes.
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Minge).
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the
remarks of my colleagues from Oklahoma, from Maine, from New Hampshire
and other Members that have spoken in support of this.
In Minnesota I know that we have had many seniors that have gone on
bus trips and otherwise to Canada to purchase prescription drugs and
often they come back with a feeling of intimidation. What we need to do
is to assure them that if they are purchasing drugs that are safe, if
they are purchasing drugs that are important for their health, that
they are not subject to the harassment or the problems that they might
face at the border when they come back.
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Burton).
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
amendment, because the gentleman from Oklahoma raised the issue of
collusion. We have held hearings with the advisory panels of the Food
and Drug Administration and the CDC that makes recommendations on
vaccines, and we have found through our committee investigations that
many of the people who are on these advisory committees that are making
the decisions on what kind of vaccines our children are getting are
being paid by the pharmaceutical companies that own large amounts of
stock in the pharmaceutical companies.
[[Page H5707]]
So I would just like to say that the collusion that the gentleman
refers to is not limited to the price controls or price problems that
he has been talking about here today. We believe that there are other
problems that need to be addressed. So I think the gentleman is on the
right track, and I support this amendment strongly.
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), if he would like to follow up
and reinforce the safety and labeling issues that have been raised
here.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to address those issues. Number
one, we cannot manufacture a drug that comes into this country unless
we are manufacturing it in an FDA-approved facility. That is number
one. So safety is not a concern, and they can do whatever they want if
it is not manufactured in an FDA-approved facility. Number two, it does
not apply to a drug that is not approved in this country. So as far as
the drugs that are approved in this country, those are the ones that
are manufactured in an FDA-approved facility that will come in safe.
All we are saying is, since NAFTA is here, and I would have voted
against had I been a Member of Congress at that time, but since it is
here, let us use it. Let us get some benefit out of it besides stealing
some of our jobs. So let us utilize NAFTA. This will not hamper the
FDA.
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I just want to first of all
say that we are not under any illusions that all of a sudden one
amendment is going to turn things around, but I believe that it is like
many things, that it sends a message out, and from a million different
amendments and messages and resolutions, at the end of the day, they
have to receive the message and have got to be able to sit down and
fashion a proposal that works universally across the board, accessible
and affordable to all of our seniors, regardless of where they live and
what their income is.
I think what we are seeing here today on the floor of the House and
have seen throughout the country is a frustration with recognizing that
something is up. People have figured out long before all of us that
something is up and we need to address it. This is just one vehicle,
one way to be able to do it. There are many others, and I support many
of the different approaches, but at the end of the day, we have to make
sure the seniors are taken care of.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about this amendment and
perhaps others that will be offered only from the sense of safety.
I rise in opposition, reluctantly, to enter into a colloquy with the
gentleman who is offering the amendment here on our side. That is to
ask, if a senior citizen, for example, goes on a bus trip from Maine or
Ohio up to Canada or down to Mexico, when they go to a pharmaceutical
operation and they go to buy a drug, let us say it is Claritin, how do
they know that that is manufactured in any of the countries the
gentleman is talking about with his amendment? Is it labeled? How do
they know that it was manufactured in an FDA-approved facility?
The gentleman says in his amendment that these drugs were approved
for use within the United States and manufactured in an FDA-approved
facility. Does it say that on the box? Can the gentleman assure me,
unlike the FDA commissioner who appeared before our committee and did
not have the confidence that the gentleman has that seniors could be
assured of equal content and equal inspection of these drugs? How can
the gentleman be so certain that they are getting a product of equal
import? If the gentleman could answer that question.
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Maine.
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I certainly will yield, if I can, to the
gentleman from Oklahoma who is a physician and practices.
But my experience, and from people that I have talked to that have
gone across the border from Maine to Canada have purchased the same
drug where it is made in the USA, and it does not say right on the
label that it has been inspected by the FDA, but it was made in the
USA, and that it is the same drug that they are purchasing.
Their experience is that they paid $400 or $500 for what would be
$1,000 in this country. It is no different than what has been happening
in agriculture with the pesticides and other types of products that are
manufactured in this country, are sold overseas, and trying to be able
to reimport those because of a permit process, not because of safety,
not because of any issue as it may pertain to the impacts of the health
of the individual, but just because of those issues, our farmers have
been disadvantaged, our seniors have been disadvantaged, and as the
gentleman from Oklahoma has said, it seems that NAFTA is a one-way
street. They build the wall, and nothing gets in, but everything tends
to come out. The gentlewoman recognizes that in her fights that she has
led in this Congress over the years with regard to those issues.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) may like to
respond on the safety issues.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I think a couple of points are important.
Number one is when we get a drug in this country, we do not know where
it is made, because a large portion of our drugs in this country are
made in Europe, made in South America, made in Puerto Rico, in FDA-
approved facilities. They have to meet that standard. That is number
one. Will there be an accident? Sure, there will be. I will not deny
that there will be a mistake made in filling a prescription just like
there is every day in this country as well.
However, I would challenge the ranking member on this committee, how
many people are not getting the medicines they needed to because they
cannot afford to get them, and if we allow competition to resume, which
this is just one way of doing it, whom of them will markedly benefit
their health, their quality of life? People's lives are being shortened
today because of the abnormally high and ridiculously increased prices
of many pharmaceuticals out there.
Can we assure 100 percent safety? No. The FDA cannot now. As a matter
of fact, what they do is they look at drugs and say, are they safe
enough? There is not any drug that is absolutely safe.
{time} 1900
Aspirin is not absolutely safe. But are we going to markedly increase
the risk for Americans with this? Absolutely not. The FDA knows those
facilities.
Will they have absolute assurance on a drug like Viagra, will
somebody try to prostitute that drug and make a substitute? They are
doing that now and they are bringing them in. It is not going to be a
new problem for the FDA, and it is not going to be more of a problem.
What it is going to be is more access at better prices for our
seniors and everybody else in this country for the pharmaceuticals,
because the competitive model is not working in this industry today.
This will be a shot that says that we need the competition to work.
That is why we want to do this.
Ms. KAPTUR. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, perhaps the officials
from the Food and Drug Administration are listening to this debate. If
there is any doubt in their minds as to the net effect of this
amendment as we move towards conference, we can tighten up the language
to make sure that we do nothing to lessen the food, drug, and safety
laws of the country, which are the strongest in the world, to protect
the health of our people.
I know that neither gentlemen would want to undermine that.
Obviously, they would want to improve it. Maybe there is some way that
FDA could indicate on the boxes that it is from an FDA-approved
facility. I think we want to give consumers ultimate confidence that
the purchase they are making will not harm them.
Mr. COBURN. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, the European
Union today has just as strong rules as we do. They import drugs from
all
[[Page H5708]]
over. In terms of quality, efficacy, and safety, their laws are almost
exactly the same. They are coming from a range of 13 to 15 countries.
If they can do it, certainly we can do it with our neighbors.
Ms. KAPTUR. I would just say to the gentleman, in the food area they
obviously do not have the same standards. In the drug area, their
system is quite different.
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield further, I
appreciate the gentlewoman's suggestion. I would encourage the FDA and
others that have any issue here, that can be tightened up in
conference. I think that is an excellent suggestion, and I would look
forward to working with the gentlewoman to tighten that up if it needed
to be.
Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for that. I withdraw my reluctant
opposition, and look forward to the conference on the amendment.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I am astonished that we are again debating
an amendment that would stifle biomedical research and impose political
will on an agency whose work is based on the non-partisan rule of
science. This is an invasion into the FDA's drug approval process--a
place where Congress has no right to be. We are not scientists. We
created the FDA and charged it with determining which drugs are safe
and effective for use in this country. We were wise to do so--the FDA
has a long history of protecting the public from drugs that are
uncertain or unsafe.
This amendment would change all that. In an attempt to impose their
beliefs on all of America, anti-choice proponents of this amendment
would have you believe that it would apply to drugs solely for the
purpose of the chemical induction of abortion. But, in fact, we know
that it would reach far beyond that.
Often times drugs are approved for one purpose, and later are found
safe and effective for treating an entirely different condition. For
example, the drug Doxil was originally approved by the FDA as an AIDS
treatment. But later, in June of 1999, the FDA approved the same drug
for the treatment of ovarian cancer. Even mifepristone, the target of
this amendment, currently shows promise for use in the treatment of
breast cancer, benign brain tumors, ovarian cancer, and even prostate
cancer.
Let's call this amendment for what it is--an attempt to score a
political point on abortion. Unfortunately, the casualties in this
political move are biomedical research, independent scientific
evaluation of medicines, and patient access to reproductive health
drugs.
What this amendment would in fact do is begin a path whereby Congress
decides, based on political and ideological considerations, what drugs
it thinks America should or should not have access to, and then blocks
the FDA from taking action to approve drugs deemed inappropriate. Let
me ask you, what would this lead to next? Which political issue would
be the target of the next attempt to thwart research or invade the
FDA's drug approval process? We must be mindful of the dangerous
precedent this amendment would set.
Now is not the time to limit the FDA in their work to determine the
safety and efficacy of promising new drugs in America. This amendment
would not only limit the FDA but it would have a chilling effect on
biomedical research, particularly women's health research, which has
been severely understudied for years. This amendment may be aimed at
one issue, but it will have consequences for millions of Americans.
When we halt action on an entire category of drugs, we erase the
possibility that those drugs could hold for treating other conditions.
We stamp out the scientific pursuit of medicines that heal with one
attempt to limit the safe practice of abortion--which I might remind my
colleagues is still a legal right in this country.
This Congress has made biomedical research a priority. We have agreed
that we have an obligation to fund the search for cures and better
treatments for disease in this country. We have the unique opportunity
as lawmakers to use public policy to actually improve people's health
and improve their lives. But what this amendment would do is exactly
the opposite--it would place political gain ahead of real progress. It
would replace the gold standard of drug approval that this nation has
come to trust with congressional restrictions based only on personal
ideology--not sound science.
Speaking as both a legislator and a cancer survivor, I know the value
of modern medicines. To be quite frank, I am offended by the idea that
some lawmakers think they can dictate to the FDA what work they can do
on proposals that could improve the lives of Americans.
I urge my colleagues--don't force your opinion regarding choice on
the FDA and the people who rely on it for sound, scientific judgement.
Allow the FDA to continue the important work it does in evaluating all
potential pharmaceuticals. Do not subject the FDA scientists to the
personal philosophies of some Members of this House. Preserve the
promise of biomedical research and new drugs for all Americans. Defeat
the Coburn Amendment.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
amendment offered by Representative Coburn.
For the past three years, Congress has revisited Rep. Coburn's
amendment to prohibit the FDA from testing, developing, and approving
drugs that could cause the chemical inducement of abortion. Like the
so-called ``partial birth abortion'' ban, it has become a hallmark of
the anti-choice agenda.
But this measure is not about abortion or even mifepristone. It is
about Congress trying to dictate what the FDA is permitted to do and
not to do. As a public health specialist by training, I am appalled
that my colleagues would attempt to interfere with the FDA's ability to
test, research, and approve any drug with political mandates.
Reproductive health drugs should be held to FDA's rigorous science-
based requirements that any drug must meet before approval can be
granted--just like any other drug. They should not be singled out
simply because they deal with reproductive health.
In 1996, the Food and Drug Administration found mifepristone a safe
and effective method for early medical abortion. This drug has been
used successfully by more than 500,000 women around the world for over
twenty years in countries like France, Sweden, and the United Kingdom,
and was just recently made available in Spain, the Netherlands,
Australia, and Israel. Every country in Europe, and beyond, seems to
recognize the benefits of making this drug available to women--except
the United States.
This measure seeks not only to deny American women access to
mifepristone, it also threatens the health of Americans in general. In
addition to providing safe, medical abortions, there is evidence that
mifepristone has great potential to treat serious medical conditions
such as inoperable brain tumors, prostate cancer, and infertility--as
well as female specific conditions like endometriosis, uterine
fibroids, and breast cancer.
I ask my colleagues, how many other uses are there for a drug like
Viagra? Yet, Viagra hit the market in record time. What kind of message
does that send to the world? The consideration of this measure and the
failure of the United States to make this drug available tells the
world that the health of Americans is negotiable and subject to the
will of anti-choice politicians.
If passed, this amendment would not only compromise the integrity of
FDA's scientific process, it would open the door for further invasions
on the drug approval process. More importantly, it would set a very
dangerous and irrevocable precedent in the medical community.
Over the past three decades, the face of reproductive health care has
drastically changed to serve the needs of American women. And for the
first time in history, a reproductive health drug has the potential to
benefit not only American women, but to provide more appropriate care
to millions of Americans. Who are we, Members of Congress, to interfere
in the face of such immense scientific progress?
Americans trust that drugs approved by the FDA are safe. Vote ``no''
on the Coburn amendment and let the FDA do its job.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Coburn amendment to
the Agriculture Appropriations bill. I strongly disagree with this
amendment because it would block the Food and Drug Administration from
testing, developing, or approving any drug that would induce abortion,
including RU-486. The Coburn amendment would limit the development of
the next generation of safer, more effective contraceptives and this is
wrong.
Women in America have a right to choose. We must protect this right.
The goal of this Congress should be to reduce the number of abortions,
protect the right of women to choose, and to make necessary medical
choices safe and legal. It is wrong for Congress to tell the FDA to
approve a particular drug or to disapprove one. Instead, it is the
FDA's mission to decide whether a drug is ``safe and effective.'' The
Coburn amendment would make this decision for the FDA and substitute
Congress' judgement over the judgement of medical professionals.
We must remember that RU-486 is a product proven to be medically
safe. After extensive French and United States clinical trials, the FDA
has determined that it is safe and effective for an early medical
abortion. For about 20 years RU-486 has been available to Europe's
women. The effect of this amendment is to ban RU-486 which can be used
for a nonsurgical abortion. For women for whom surgical abortion poses
risks or is otherwise inappropriate, the Coburn amendment
unconstitutionally restricts the right to choose. For
[[Page H5709]]
women living far from clinics, it precludes the possibility of
receiving RU-486 in their physician's office, again burdening the right
to choose. Women have the right to choose and I support the current FDA
medical approval process.
We should not trample on the FDA's ability to test, research and
approve drugs based on sound scientific evidence. We should also
remember this amendment is not limited to just this one safe and
effective drug. It is not simply about access to RU-486 alone. It would
have a dangerous chilling effect on developing other drugs for various
other medical purposes. Drugs used to treat other conditions including
cancers and ulcers can induce abortion. This proposed ban could limit
the FDA's capacity to consider approving these other therapies and
could force researchers to reject promising treatment opportunities.
I stand with the American Medical Association; the American College
of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; and the American Medical Women's
Association to oppose this amendment.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the Coburn amendment and protect a
woman's right to choose. Vote ``no'' on the Coburn amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that,
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 538, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn)
will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Kaptur
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Kaptur:
Page 96, after line 4, insert the following new section:
TITLE IX--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. __. Within available funds, the Secretary of
Agriculture is urged to use ethanol, biodiesel, and other
alternative fuels to the maximum extent practicable in
meeting the fuel needs of the Department of Agriculture.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I offer a sense of Congress resolution in
the form of an amendment concerning ethanol and diesel fuels.
Mr. Chairman, we all have seen the price of fuel rise across the
country, spike, and cause businesses and households a great deal of
economic anxiety this summer. It was but yet another example of our
overdependence on imported fuels to move this economy.
There is no one answer to that problem, but obviously we should all
have a strong, very strong-willed position to move America toward any
energy independence in our lifetime.
One of the most important departments to help us do that is the
Department of Agriculture. In fact, the potential for the expanded use
of ethanol and biodiesel and biofuels of all kinds using cellulose from
our fields and forests is absolutely unlimited and it is renewable.
In addition to that, it is much less polluting. The State of Ohio,
for example, I think leads the Nation in mixtures that involve ethanol.
We have shown that research can be done in producing alternative fuels
that benefit our environment, can actually help our engines burn more
cleanly, and end our growing dependence.
Over 60 percent of the fuel used to power this economy comes from
foreign sources. It is our major strategic vulnerability.
USDA has been helping in research, albeit slowly, over the years. We
are making some progress. The intent of this resolution is to further
encourage the Secretary of Agriculture to use ethanol, biodiesel, and
other alternative fuels to the maximum extent practicable in all of
USDA facilities across the country. There are hundreds.
One of the areas in which we are successfully working is in the
district of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) in Beltsville,
Maryland, at the chief research station in this country to power many
of the land vehicles, tractors, and cars, used in that major research
station.
What we are asking USDA to do in this sense of Congress resolution is
to exert the maximum effort possible and look at the other sites around
the country, including cooperative efforts with our land grant
universities, with other research sites across the country, with the
headquarters facilities here in Washington, D.C., and really help lead
America forward and develop the set of connections that can move
product from the farm into industrial and agricultural use by the end
user.
So it is very straightforward, and if we are to be serious about
alternative fuels, we must use every arrow in our quiver. We are asking
the USDA to put added muscle behind this in every single facility that
it operates across the country.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I accept the gentlewoman's amendment, and
recommend that the House do so, as well.
Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman. I just wish we could power some of
those sheep with some ethanol, but we will probably figure out a way to
do that in the future.
Mr. SKEEN. We keep them well inoculated, and they do not buy their
pharmaceuticals from anyplace other than home.
Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for his support.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 70 Offered by Mr. Gilman
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 70 offered by Mr. Gilman:
Page 85, after line 15, insert the following new section:
Sec. __. The Secretary of Agriculture shall use $15,000,000
of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to provide
compensation to producers of onions whose farming operations
are located in a county designated by the Secretary as a
disaster area for drought in 1999 and who suffered quality
losses to their 1999 onion production due to, or related to,
drought. Payments shall be made on a per hundredweight basis
on each qualifying producer's pre-1996 production of onions,
based on the 5-year average market price for yellow onions.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would require the Secretary of
Agriculture to use $15 million of the funds of the Commodity Credit
Corporation to provide compensation to producers of onions who were
hard hit by drought in the 1999 growing season.
The reason for this amendment is quite obvious. Onion producers from
my congressional district in Orange County, New York, have been
devastated by either drought, wind, or rain 3 out of the past 4 years.
Making matters worse, the USDA crop insurance program provided little
or no assistance to these growers.
I had the opportunity to visit with our onion producers just this
past week to learn of their outstanding plight. While it is imperative
that these growers receive adequate assistance in order to survive, I
will withdraw my amendment, since it is subject to a point of order in
the House.
However, I would ask the distinguished chairman of our subcommittee,
the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), if I could speak with him on
this important matter.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GILMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's concern, and we
will continue to do our best as the bill proceeds to conference.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman, onion growers
in Orange County, New York in my congressional district have suffered
devastating losses 3 out of the past 4 years, 1996, 1998, and 1999.
They are in desperate need of meaningful assistance. The small sums
which crop insurance paid to these farmers due to the 1996, 1998 and
1999 losses failed to provide anything close to minimal relief.
Accordingly, our farming families continue to lose their farms,
individuals are uprooted, a traditional way of life is jeopardized, and
a segment of our
[[Page H5710]]
national food supply has been further diminished. These are the very
upheavals which crop insurance was designed initially to prevent.
The USDA has clearly demonstrated its inability to effectively
deliver needed and equitable crop loss disaster assistance to Orange
County onion farmers. Repeated and intense communications between the
Department, my office, and onion producers over the last few years at
all levels have failed to address any of our concerns.
USDA officials have stated that the Department does not have a clear
direction from the Congress on how to proceed with the complicated and
untraditional issues surrounding the unique situation facing these
onion growers, including, one, how to compensate for crop quality
losses; two, reliance on a crop insurance model that cannot adequately
account for multiyear losses, let alone 3 out of the 4 years; and
third, how to calculate payment for high-value family farm specialty
crop businesses.
Accordingly, I would ask for the chairman's commitment to work with
me to provide assistance to our onion growers in Orange County, New
York, who have incurred devastating crop losses due to damaging
weather-related conditions 3 out of the last 4 years.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
again, I understand the gentleman's concern. We will continue to do our
best as the bill proceeds to conference.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, while I am sure it will come as no
surprise, our onion growers in Orange County are proud to receive few
government subsidies. However, the current plight of these hard-working
producers threatens the overall fate of our Hudson Valley, our State,
and Nation's agricultural industry.
As their representative, I can no longer allow that unique and
devastating situation to go unnoticed and unassisted, and thus I
greatly appreciate the gentleman's willingness to work with us on this
important matter. I thank the chairman.
Mr. SKEEN. I would tell the gentleman, we will do the very best we
can on that matter.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Rangel
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Rangel:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section,
preceding the short title (page 96, after line 4), the
following new title:
TITLE IX--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 901. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used--
(1) to implement section 620(a) of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2370(a));
(2) to exercise the authorities conferred upon the
President by section 5(b) of the Trading With the Enemy Act,
which were being exercised with respect to Cuba on July 1,
1977, as a result of a national emergency declared by the
President before that date, and are being exercised on the
day before the date of the enactment of this Act, and any
regulations in effect on the day before such date of
enactment pursuant to the exercise of such authorities;
(3) to implement any prohibition on exports to Cuba that is
in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this
Act under the Export Administration Act of 1979;
(4) to implement the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992, other
than section 1705(f) of that Act (relating to direct mail
service to Cuba);
(5) to implement the Cuban Liberty and Democratic
Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996, or the amendments made by
that Act;
(6) to implement subparagraph (A) of section 901(j)(2) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to denial of
foreign tax credit, etc., with respect to certain foreign
countries) with respect to Cuba;
(7) to implement section 902(c) of the Food Security Act of
1985;
(8) to implement General Note 3(b) of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States with respect to Cuba; or
(9) to regulate or prohibit travel to and from Cuba by
individuals who are citizens or residents of the United
States, or any transactions ordinarily incident to such
travel, if such travel would be lawful in the United States.
Mr. MENENDEZ (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Point of Order
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida is recognized on his point
of order.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order
against this amendment on the ground that it violates clause 7 of rule
XVI on the issue of germaneness.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment references a number 9, as a matter of
fact, programs and/or laws. All of the programs, certainly not even the
overwhelming majority of them that are referenced, are either
administered or enforced or regulated or in any way funded by this bill
that we are considering this evening.
There is clearly an issue of germaneness, so under clause 7 of rule
XVI, I raise the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) wish to
be heard on the point of order?
Mr. RANGEL. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, it was my understanding that the gentleman
from Florida was part of an agreement that would allow our farmers to
export their products to Cuba.
Mr. Chairman, while it is true that the agreement was supposed to be
done in conference and not on the floor, I thought I could facilitate
what he was a party to by merely removing any restrictions that our
farmers would have to allow them to sell their products. Knowing his
disdain for communism and his support, I assume, to try to eliminate
this form of lack of democracy in Cuba, it was the feeling of the House
that we could attempt to derail the communism that existed in China,
North Korea, in North Vietnam.
I just felt that if we have such compassion about trying to instill
democracy all across Asia, we should have just as much concern about
the nearness and proximity to my friend's home State, Florida.
{time} 1915
I thought that since the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) was
party to the agreement that this would allow us at least to do publicly
on the House floor what so many said was going to be done privately in
conference.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there another Member that wishes to be heard on this
point of order?
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be recognized on this point
of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind Members that they should direct
their comments to the Chair regarding whether or not the point of order
should or should not be sustained.
The gentlewoman from Florida may continue.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Rangel
amendment, but I support my dear colleague, the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Diaz-Balart) on the various points about why this part of the bill
should be stricken, why this amendment should be stricken.
What this amendment is asking our U.S. agencies to do is to look the
other way when U.S. laws governing trade with the oppressive Castro
regime are being violated. It does so by prohibiting funds in the act
from being used for the implementation of various foreign policy and
national security restrictions.
This amendment extends far beyond the jurisdiction of the
appropriations bill by referring to authorities, export controls and
sanctions imposed under the Foreign Assistance Act, The Trading With
the Enemy Act, the Export Administration Act, the Cuban Democracy Act,
and other existing laws whose enforcements are administered by the
Department of Commerce, the State Department, the Treasury Department
and sometimes in consultation with the Department of Defense.
Mr. Chairman, it is ironic that the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel), my good friend, the sponsor of this amendment, who repeatedly
comes to the floor advocating for greater presidential authority over
foreign policy and trade matters and seeks a minimal congressional
involvement in
[[Page H5711]]
any of these issues would offer an amendment which actually restricts
the President and issues a congressional mandate dictating what the
pertinent agencies can and cannot do. So I believe that this amendment,
which really seeks to change U.S. policy toward the brutal Castro
dictatorship which rules Cuba with an iron grip by circumventing and
ignoring the committees of jurisdiction, who have the expertise in
these issues; without affording those committees an opportunity to
debate, discuss and offer recommendations.
Further, Mr. Chairman, the Rangel amendment is in direct conflict
with the agreement that we had reached a few weeks ago on the sanctions
issue, an agreement which I believe has received broad range of
support, and this agreement not only maintains a strong stance against
Cuba's totalitarian regime, but it also protects American taxpayers
from bearing the burden of failed loans and poor investments with
Castro.
I would hope that the chairman would rule that this is not germane to
the bill in question.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule, but would inquire, are
there other Members who wish to be heard specifically on the point of
order?
The Chair has been lenient allowing a certain amount of substantive
debate to creep into this and would be prepared to rule, unless there
are other Members who wish to be heard on the point of order.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Minnesota rise?
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for that
purpose.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleague from New
York (Mr. Rangel) for bringing up this issue. We have all read of
numerous hours of negotiations that have been spent on Cuba trade and
agricultural products. We know that the agricultural appropriations
bill has been held up for probably a month as a result of negotiations
behind the scenes. This amendment is an opportunity for us to consider
on the floor of the House of Representatives this very important issue,
otherwise, this point of order seeks to force deliberation on this
amendment into the closed confines of conference committee.
I urge that the Chairman rule against the point of order so that we
have openness with respect to the legislative process and so that we
have an opportunity to consider an amendment that provides a realistic
opportunity for trade with Cuba rather than a hollow provision which
will allow for very limited trade with Cuba.
Mr. Chairman, I really feel that this particular amendment is the
only opportunity that this body will have to debate and deliberate on
the trade with Cuba issue which otherwise is going to be foreclosed to
this body, we will see something come back from conference committee,
there will be a rule, which will waive all points of order, and this
particular debate will be precluded.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has the burden of proving
that the amendment is germane.
Does the gentleman have additional arguments he would like to make in
that regard?
Mr. RANGEL. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) has been
working on some points that deal with this point of order, and I would
like to hear from her, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has been quite lenient but asks Members to
speak to the point of order.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support my colleague from New
York (Mr. Rangel) on this amendment and certainly believe it to be
germane. I think it has been correctly stated that there has been a lot
of backroom dealing going on on this issue. Day in and day out, we have
heard about all of the antics, all of the various manipulations and
maneuvering that has gone on only to have surfaced some very, very
limited trade. One way that would perhaps allow our farmers to sell to
Cuba, but would, on the other hand, do a lot of damage to the work that
this President has been doing to help open up discussion and debate and
to export democracy to Cuba.
It seems to me that this amendment would take care of some of the
problems that have been created by my colleagues from the other side of
the aisle, and I would simply ask that the Chair would recognize that
and rule in favor of my colleague and the work that he is attempting to
do.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
For what purpose does the gentleman from New Jersey rise?
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, on the point of order if I may.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). I believe his venue here is
inappropriate.
For those of us who are not privileged to sit on the Committee on
Appropriations but who have ranking positions, as I do, on the
Committee on International Economic Policy and Trade for which
sanctions issue fall within the jurisdiction of our committee.
We do not believe that the appropriations bill is the appropriate
venue for the pursuit. I did not believe that the amendment of the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) in the committee, which was
legislating an appropriations bill, was appropriate.
It deprives those of us who have jurisdiction over certain items, if
that is allowed to move forward, to, therefore, nullify the value of
our positions; therefore, I think that the amendment is not germane.
I further think it is an attempt to legislate in an appropriations
bill, because it talks about travel as well which has nothing to do
within the appropriations part of this agriculture bill. On the merits,
of course, I have a strong disagreement with the gentleman, but I
believe his venue is wrong and I would urge that the Chair rule the
amendment out of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the amendment.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has the burden of proving
that the amendment is germane. The preface in the amendment that it is
confined to funds in the bill is helpful in determining germaneness, so
long as the listed funding to be prohibited bears some relationship to
the functions of departments and agencies covered by the bill.
The Chair is unable to determine any role the covered agencies have
in carrying out several of the laws mentioned in the amendment. Title
VIII of the reported bill has been stricken on a point of order and the
list of sanctions relating to Cuba is no longer in the bill. For this
reason, the amendment, although in the form of a limitation, does not
relate in all respects to programs covered by the bill and is not
germane. The point of order is sustained.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to simply speak on behalf of the amendment that
was already adopted, which I strongly support, and I want to thank the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for supporting. I also want to thank
my good friend, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) for
supporting this as well.
This dealt with the alternative fuels amendment that was already
adopted, and the reason I wanted to rise in support of it is because
for the last 11 months the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center,
which is located in my district and so strongly supported by the
committee, has been conducting a pilot project using biodiesel.
Biodiesel, or any of the other alternative fuels, makes sense for two
reasons, Mr. Chairman. First, because biodiesel is derived vegetable or
soybean oil it opens another potential market for our Nation's farmers.
Secondly, biodiesel is good for the environment. It is a renewable
resource that burns much cleaner than conventional diesel.
At BARC, they use 80 percent diesel and 20 percent soybean oil mix.
Their test results found that using biodiesel reduces carbon dioxide
emissions 16 percent. Now that may have already been mentioned, but it
bears repeating. Particulate matter, which is a major component of
smog, is reduced by 22 percent and sulfur emissions are reduced by 20
percent.
Mr. Chairman, to date the 143 vehicles in their fleet have used over
60,000
[[Page H5712]]
gallons of biodiesel in their trucks, tractors and buses. They have
found that maintenance costs are the same as using conventional diesel
fuel.
In fact, the mechanics at BARC's motor pool actually prefer using
biodiesel. Not only does it increase lubrication throughout the engine
but unlike regular diesel, it does not emit fumes that cause eye
irritations, a fact that those of us who have been behind buses from
time to time will think is a pretty good idea.
I was going to urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment, but I want
to commend my colleagues for already having done that, but I am pleased
that I had the opportunity to rise. I congratulate the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for this initiative.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to thank the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for being such a strong supporter of alternative
fuels and, obviously, with the gentleman's support, the Beltsville
Research Station, the premiere agricultural research station in the
country, is leading the rest of the Nation in this important arena.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer)
for his own leadership as a member of the Committee on Appropriations
in assuring that Beltsville understands the seriousness of this
Congress in trying to move additional alternative fuels on-line for the
sake, not just of the Beltsville station, but for the sake of the
Nation. I want to thank the gentleman for taking the time today to
place in the Record the actual research, the demonstration and the
results of what has actually been accomplished at Beltsville.
Without question, the gentleman is placing a foundation there that
can be built upon and transferred to other USDA sites, as well as the
cooperative agreements that USDA can reach with all of our land grant
universities across the country.
I just want to thank the gentleman for helping to spur these efforts
forward and for helping Beltsville lead the rest of the Nation as it
should.
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman
for her comments and thank her for her leadership. Again, I thank the
chairman of the committee, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen),
my friend, for his leadership as well.
Amendment No. 33 Offered by Mr. Sanford
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 33 offered by Mr. Sanford:
Insert before the short title the following:
TITLE IX--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 901. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act to the Department of Agriculture may be
used to carry out a pilot program under the child nutrition
programs to study the effects of providing free breakfasts to
students without regard to family income.
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply gets at funding for
the school breakfast pilot program. Mr. Chairman, this program was a 3-
year authorization which basically chose six school districts from
around the country to begin a pilot program looking at the link between
eating breakfast and performance in school. Last year, $7 million went
toward that cause, another $6 million is in this bill. This amendment
goes after $6 million that is currently in the bill.
I would simply say that common sense would dictate, not another $6
million, that there is directly a link between having breakfast and
performance for a young person at school.
{time} 1930
It does not take $13 million to tell us that young folks will do
better in school after breakfast than without breakfast.
So I do not think this amendment is at all about the merits of the
pilot program itself. Rather, I think that what this is about is do we
want this pilot program to, since we know that is directly a link
between one's performance and having breakfast, do we want to grow this
into school breakfast for everybody around the country? For me, the
answer would be no. Because if one actually looks at the numbers, it
would cost a full $750 million a year to provide free breakfast for
every school and every child in school districts across the country. To
me, that says there is no free breakfast, there is no free lunch. $750
million is a lot of money.
Now, the reason I think it is worth looking at is that, if one is
poor, one is going to get a free breakfast at school. Since 1975, the
result of basically action taken here in this Congress, poor folks have
been able to get a free breakfast. In fact, I have a chart here that
shows participation rates around the country. In South Carolina, 98.9
percent of school districts offer breakfast. In West Virginia, it is
98.7. In Idaho, it is 97.8. In Texas, it is 96.8. In Delaware, it is
96.6.
I could read the other numbers for each of the other States in the
Union; but the point is that, in the whole, we are looking at very high
participation rates for breakfast.
The point is do we want to have another Federal mandate that says one
is going to have school breakfast, and again I would say no. The reason
I say no is that I think we have to take aim at helping folks. I think
that those in need absolutely should be given a free breakfast. But if
one is a lawyer, does one need to have a free breakfast for one's
children? If one is a doctor, does one's children need to get a free
breakfast? If one is a high-tech zillionaire from Silicon Valley, does
one's children need to get a free breakfast?
In fact, if I look at the number of school districts across this
country, 20 percent of the families who send their kids to public
schools make in excess of $75,000. Five percent make over $132,000. Do
we want people from Georgetown County, where per capita income is
basically a little less than $20,000 a year in South Carolina,
subsidizing people who make over $132,000 in the purchase of their
child's breakfast? I would have to say no.
I as well would just make a point that the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling), the chairman of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce, in the debate that occurred at the
committee level on this came out on the side of we do not need a
universal free breakfast program.
Finally, I want to say that I think that this is the most basic of
all parental responsibilities. The idea that before one sends one's kid
off to school that one help them with breakfast, especially if one is
financially able to do so. This is a place wherein family traditions
can be passed along, family history can be passed along, have you done
your homework can be passed along. A lot of other normal family
questions can occur at the breakfast table. So handing this off to
school districts to me would be a mistake on that basis as well.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in absolute opposition to the Sanford amendment,
which would prohibit the Department of Agriculture from completing the
School Breakfast Demonstration pilot project.
The School Breakfast Demonstration program is a scientific study to
measure the effect of providing breakfast at school free of charge to
all children, regardless of income, on a broad range of student
outcomes, including grades, attendance, tardiness, and also behavior
and concentration.
Mr. Chairman, yes, we should be providing breakfast for all of our
children at their homes in the morning. But we are sure that parents in
this busy world we are living in are commuting long hours, they are
working long hours, and they leave the house before their children have
had breakfast. Every child needs to go to school ready to learn on a
full stomach.
The Meals for Achievement Act that I authored has already received
half of its needed funding. The first $7 million was appropriated last
year. The program is already under way. After a nationwide competition,
six school districts have been chosen to participate.
As we debate, these school districts across the country representing
a wide variety of schools, school districts, and students are already
setting up their programs. Why would we today take that funding away
from them?
Mr. Chairman, as a Nation, we are searching for answers to the many
[[Page H5713]]
challenges our schools and our children face. Numerous studies,
including one by Harvard University and Massachusetts General Hospital,
show that children who eat breakfast improve both their grades and
their behavior in school. But I can assure my colleagues, if I came to
this floor and said to them that it is absolute that children who eat
breakfast do better in school, one would say to me prove it.
I want a scientific study, and I want that study to be a government,
a Federal Government-paid and -monitored study. That is why we need to
do this pilot program.
But because children need to have breakfast is one of the reasons why
many school districts and some in my district provide breakfast at
school to all of their students on the mornings before standardized
testing.
In today's world, if a child is lucky enough to have two parents
living at home, chances are that both parents are working and commuting
long hours. More and more parents are out the door on the road early in
the morning with no time to sit down to breakfast. That does not mean
they cannot afford breakfast. It means these children do not eat
breakfast because there is nobody there to insist that they do.
The breakfast program is voluntary. Nobody has to go to school and
eat breakfast. It will be available for all children no matter when and
if they want to eat breakfast.
Whether we like it or not, many children do not eat; and they do
arrive at school hungry. And when they are hungry, they are not ready
to learn.
So unless we want to pass a law requiring every family to ensure
their kids eat breakfast before school, and then hire a bunch of
breakfast police to enforce our law, we need to understand the benefits
of a universal school breakfast program.
That is why we must allow the Department of Agriculture to use the
funds included in this bill to complete the School Breakfast
Demonstration program. Along with most educators and scientists, I
believe that previous experience and studies will hold true and that
the School Breakfast Demonstration program will prove once again that
school breakfast is not a welfare program, it is an education program
that will benefit all students.
Just as we do not charge the wealthy students for their books and
their computers because they can afford it, we must not charge students
for breakfast. Because like a book or a computer, breakfast is a
learning tool, a tool that must be made available to all.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I want to
commend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) for her great
leadership on assuring that every child in this country obtains proper
nutrition. Obviously, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey)
represents a different area of the country than I might coming from
northwest Ohio or the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), the
author of the amendment.
However, I can tell my colleagues, even in my own district, some of
the most instructive people one can speak with are the food service
workers in our schools. It is very shocking to go into some of the
schools and to talk to these food service workers who tell us about a
young child that comes in on a Monday morning who has not eaten all
weekend and who asks permission to eat two school breakfasts because he
or she has not had a decent meal all weekend. It is sad to think that
that can happen in America; but in fact, it is happening every day. I
am sure in some communities it is happening more than in other places.
I think as we use the school breakfast program to try to make sure
that every child in these early years receives proper nutrition, and
maybe that is a mothering role and so maybe the women of America feel
more strongly about it, I think it is important to recognize that we
need to understand how to make these programs work better to make sure
that we are providing proper nutrition, to really understand which
children may not be getting proper nutrition and what we can do about
it.
Hopefully, every child would get the food they need at home; but we
know that that just is not the case in today's world with people
working two and three shifts, different jobs, split shifts, all the
rest. Sometimes just finding family time for dinner is difficult in
today's world. That is not the world I grew up in, but it is the world
that so many families deal with today.
The money that we initially provided for this study totaled $7
million; and, in fact, the study is under way. The remaining $6 million
that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) and others have
supported is coming from transferring monies out of the WIC program,
the Women, Infants and Children's feeding program that are carrying
over balances that are not needed because we are being successful with
enrollment in that program, taking great care to be sure that
sufficient dollars do remain in the WIC program.
Nothing is more important than a good meal with proper nutrition for
the learning ability of children. When they do not eat enough and they
do not eat properly, they get tired. Their brains do not grow fast
enough. Their early years are absolutely critical in producing a child
that can fully function in this society.
So I would urge defeat of the amendment of the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Sanford) and again compliment the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey) for her outstanding leadership and her great
heart on making sure that every child in America grows to their full
potential, beginning with good nutrition.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, hunger is an issue many in America would
prefer to ignore.
This amendment is about hunger.
This amendment is about making sure all of our children have a hearty
meal and a healthy start as they begin the school day.
There is evidence of hunger in 3.6 percent of all households in
America.
Close to four million children are hungry.
Fourteen million children--twenty percent of the population of
children--live in food insecure homes.
In food insecure homes, meals are skipped, or the size of meals is
reduced.
More than ten percent of all households in America are food insecure.
Because there is such hunger and food insecurity, there is also
infant mortality, growth stunting, iron deficiency, anemia, poor
learning, and increased chances for disease.
Because there is such hunger and food insecurity, the poor are more
likely to remain poor, the hungry are more likely to remain hungry.
It seems strange that we must fight for food for those who can not
fight for themselves.
It really is time to stop picking on the poor.
Less than 3 percent of the budget goes to feed the hungry.
It is for those reasons we must soundly and solidly reject this ill-
advised amendment.
Currently, Mr. Chairman, the Agriculture appropriations bill includes
$6 million to complete the School Breakfast Program Demonstration
program.
Last year, $7 million was appropriated for the project, and school
districts have been chosen to participate.
It is imprudent, unwise and injudicious to discontinue this study at
this time.
This project will give us the information we need to determine if
providing breakfast at school for all children is a sound investment
for federal dollars.
The link between eating breakfast and improved learning and behavior
is already well established.
Students who eat breakfast do better on tests.
Students who eat breakfast make better grades.
Breakfast is a learning tool, just like books and computers.
We cannot prepare our children for the future if we insist upon
policies that relegate them to the past.
And, we cannot protect and preserve our communities, if we do not
adequately provide the most basic commodity for living--something to
eat.
Nutrition programs are essential to the well-being of millions of our
children.
These are citizens who often cannot provide for themselves and need
help for existence.
They do not ask much.
Just a little help to sustain them through the day.
Just a little help to keep them alert in class and productive in
their lives.
Food for all, especially our children, is worth fighting for.
Reject this Sanford amendment.
It is not worthy of our support.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment
offered by Congressman Sanford to H.R. 4461, the Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug
[[Page H5714]]
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 2001. This
amendment would prohibit the use of funds to complete a pilot project
under which all children will receive free school breakfasts,
regardless of income.
I am a long-time proponent of child nutrition programs, but I also
believe we must focus funding on those children in greatest need to
services.
The universal breakfast pilot project is based on the premise that
children who do not eat at school don't eat breakfast and that more
children would eat breakfast at school if all children could eat for
free.
Mr. Chairman, any school that wants to participate in the school
breakfast program with federal reimbursements can do so, and all
children are eligible for participation. However, in contrast to a
universal breakfast program, only low-income children are eligible for
free meals.
The school breakfast program has grown tremendously over the past
years. In 1980, approximately 33,000 schools served breakfast. In 1990,
approximately 43,000 schools participated. This year, approximately
74,000 schools did. The number of children participating in breakfast
programs has increased as well. During the past 10 years the number of
children receiving school breakfasts rose 88 percent, climbing from 4
million to 7.5 million
Over 85 percent of low-income children enrolled in elementary school
attend a school offering the breakfast program. This is an important
fact because there are more breakfast programs in elementary than
secondary schools. As a results, the opportunity to participate in a
breakfast program is available to the majority of low-income children
in elementary schools.
Mr. Chairman, I doubt there is any member in this body who would
disagree with the fact that breakfast is an important meal for
children. It helps provide them the energy they need to perform will in
school. We do not need to prove this through a demonstration program.
What is under debate is who is responsible for feeding our nation's
children. While I believe it is important that all children have an
opportunity to participate in a school breakfast program, I also think
the primary responsibility for feeding children lies with their
parents.
Any proposal to make school breakfast free to children at all income
levels in all schools would primarily subsidize middle and upper income
children who do not need a free breakfast.
One reason children do not participate in the breakfast program to
the extent they participate in the lunch program is that many children
eat breakfast at home with their families. This is not usually an
option for lunch. Why would we want to encourage children to eat at
school when they can spend valuable time with their parents?
If the argument in support of a universal breakfast program is that
it will reduce the number of children who are missing breakfast, large
research evaluations funded by the USDA in the early 1990s do not
support that contention. Studies show that 94 percent of children in
kindergarten through third grade already eat breakfast and that the
presence of school breakfast does not increase this number.
I have opposed the funding of this pilot project from the beginning
and continue to oppose it. It is not needed. We have a school breakfast
program that is available to the majority of low-income children. Other
children can participate if they want to do so.
At every opportunity, we should encourage children and parents to
share meals together.
Mr. Chairman, I want to particularly thank Mr. Sanford for the
forethought and commitment to have us stop moving forward on an effort
that is unnecessary and I think unwise. All a universal breakfast
program does is increase the federal budget and reduce quality time
between parents and children. I encourage my colleagues to support the
Sanford amendment. We do not need this pilot project.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 538, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Sanford) will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. DeFazio
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 26 offered by Mr. DeFazio:
Insert at the end of the bill (before the short title) the
following:
TITLE IX--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 901. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
not more than $28,684,000 of the funds made available in this
Act may be used for Wildlife Services Program operations
under the heading ``Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service'', and none of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available by this Act for Wildlife Services Program
operations to carry out the first section of the Act of March
2, 1931 (7 U.S.C. 426), may be used to conduct campaigns for
the destruction of wild predatory mammals for the purpose of
protecting livestock.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) reserves a
point of order.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, may I ask, does the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Skeen) intend to pursue his point of order, because in the
interest of time, if he does, I will offer a different amendment.
Mr. SKEEN. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw
amendment No. 26.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Amendment No. 39 Offered by Mr. DeFazio
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 39 offered by Mr. DeFazio:
Insert before the short title the following:
TITLE IX--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 901. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
not more than $28,684,000 of the funds made available in this
Act may be used for Wildlife Services Program operations
under the heading ``Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service'', and none of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available by this Act for Wildlife Services Program
operations to carry out the first section of the Act of March
2, 1931 (7 U.S.C. 426), may be used to conduct campaigns for
the destruction of wild animals for the purpose of protecting
stock.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes evenly
divided between the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and myself.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New Mexico?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, we have debated this amendment before. Actually, this
amendment passed the House this fiscal year 1999 but was narrowly
defeated on a reconsideration vote after powerful special interests
weighed in with howls of protest, false sense, and red herrings.
Well, first, let us dispense with the false arguments that we will
hear tonight from the gentleman from Texas and others. This is not
about public health and safety. Children in school yards will be safe
whether or not this amendment passes. It does not go to the issue of
wildlife that presents a public health and safety issue. It is not
about dusky geese. It is not about brown tree snakes in Hawaii. It is
not about airplanes falling from the sky after bird strikes.
{time} 1945
None of those activities of the Animal Damage Control agency, now
called Wildlife Services, would be affected by this amendment. It is
not about tuberculosis and deer in the Midwest. We will hear all those
things. It is not about that.
It is about one thing and one thing only. One specific program that
is reserved for private ranching interests in the western United
States. A program of subsidies to those ranchers. A program that is not
available to any other member of the public who has a particular
problem with wildlife on their property. It is only available to the
ranchers.
[[Page H5715]]
It is an ineffective, indiscriminate program shooting, trapping,
poisoning wildlife that has been promoted by ADC, which now calls
themselves Wildlife Services. And this is, again, unlike their
indiscriminate ineffective program, a very specific target, eliminate
the $7 million a year subsidy. That would reduce the bill to the
funding recommended by the President, which would fully meet all of the
obligations to protect public health and safety and other duties of
that agency except for the subsidized program which goes on to private
ranch lands, benefits Sam Donaldson and others.
They have spent millions of dollars on this program, and there are
more coyotes today than there were when the program began. They do not
understand coyote biology. When they kill the alpha male and female,
they end up with more coyotes spread over a wider range, which is
exactly what has happened. They have managed to kill people's pets.
They have managed to kill, unfortunately, human beings from plane
crashes with the aerial gunning program.
Nothing in this amendment would prevent those same ranchers, who are
subsidized by Federal taxpayers, from hiring someone or doing it
themselves by any legal means to protect their livestock. They can do
it themselves. Nothing in this amendment would prevent that. But it
would say that they no longer will have the luxury of calling for a
Federal employee to come upon their land to take care of their private
wildlife problems. It will be up to them to pay for it themselves, to
hire someone to do it for them.
That is the gist of this amendment. It is an amendment of great
merit. It has passed the House before, and I recommend Members support
it.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to make two points in regard to the
amendment. First, the reason the committee has recommended funding
Wildlife Services above the administration's level is because of
requests from Members of this body. In fact, if we had the budget to
accommodate all requests, the number would be much higher.
I would also point out that the committee recommendation also
includes $1 million for aviation safety that was requested by the USDA
officials after the budget submission. Sadly, Mr. Chairman, again this
year APHIS suffered a plane crash that killed two people working for
Wildlife Services. The USDA is in the second year of upgrading its
aviation safety program and this budget is where that money comes from.
My second point, Mr. Chairman, is the issue of fairness. Livestock
producers benefit from the APHIS program, and so do many other sectors.
What is the point in singling out one group? Why not take away the
funds used to protect fish farms or oilseed producers from migratory
birds? Why not make the States and the cattle industry assume the full
cost of the brucellosis program? Why not make the State of Hawaii and
its tourism industry assume the full cost of protection from the brown
tree snake? Let the States assume the full cost of rabies eradication
and let the airlines and local airports assume the full cost of
protection from bird strikes.
What I am saying to the vast majority of Members of this body whose
districts benefit from Wildlife Services programs is that it is unfair
to single out or attempt to single out one sector of one industry when
so many others benefit.
In closing, I strongly recommend a ``no'' vote on this amendment. It
will not achieve its purported purposes. It will endanger the health
and welfare of people and animals alike. It is opposed by the States
the sponsors represent. Contrary to recent assertions, it will have
far-reaching and negative effects upon the Wildlife Services authority.
The sponsor should play it straight up and offer an amendment to do
away with all lethal predator control. But they know it would never
pass the House, so they attack one part of American agriculture that
they have no use for. Oppose this amendment and let us get back to the
real business of the House.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oregon for
yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of the pending
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to make five points. Number one, the
wildlife methods of predator control are ineffective and wasteful. From
1983 to 1993, the amount of money that has been spent on this program
has gone up by 71 percent, kills have gone up by 30 percent, and there
is no significant reduction in the predator population.
Number two. Taxpayers should not be responsible for subsidizing
predator control. As my friend from Oregon said when he spoke, not one
word in this amendment would in any way impact a rancher's ability to
shoot or control livestock on his or her property. All it says is that
the taxpayers of this country are not going to subsidize gunning of
predators on these ranches out in the West.
Thirdly, the Wildlife Services methods for predator control are
inhumane. All we have to do is see footage of films of these
helicopters and aircraft speeding low across the range with people with
guns shooting indiscriminately from one end to the other. It is
inhumane and it is dangerous.
My colleagues will hear and see the same posters that we have seen
for years now, getting a little bit dog-eared, of the wolf chasing the
little white sheep. They are gruesome pictures. What they do not show
are the seven humans who have been killed in aviation accidents
associated with gunning these animals down. These individuals ride in
these helicopters and aircraft with their rifles shooting from the
aircraft, which by the way, is a violation of FAA regulations.
I guess the fourth point is that alternative methods of predator
control do exist. They do exist. We do not have to support a program
where we take taxpayers' funds and use them to kill animals in a
program that has never really worked, and all it really constitutes in
the end is a subsidy to large western ranchers.
I urge support of the pending amendment.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Bonilla).
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in strong opposition to the DeFazio amendment.
This is amazing, this debate, and what kind of rhetoric is being
tossed around this Chamber. The Wildlife Services program is violating
Federal law in the air? FAA regulations? Give us a break.
These accusations that the program is inhumane. The accusations that
it is not focused and that innocent wildlife are somehow caught in the
cross-fire. The accusation that because there are more coyotes today,
and there are, that it is a direct result of this program?
Those who are going to stand up and propose this amendment ought to
at least stick to the facts. I have a fact here and a photo to prove
how if we do not participate in this program, this inhumane activity
will occur. These are several sheep in Oregon that were destroyed
earlier on in a brutal way, as my colleagues can see from the photo, by
wild coyotes who were roaming this area. This is the kind of
inhumaneness that we are trying to stop. It is not only inhumane, it is
of great cost to producers and farmers and ranchers around the country.
All of those who are standing up with this false rhetoric right now
should perhaps consider, as they look at this photograph, about
rewriting the nursery rhyme ``Mary Had a Little Lamb'' and we failed to
protect it. That is what should rest on the consciences of those who
would eliminate this very important program that promotes humaneness,
is cost effective, and very important to farmers and ranchers around
this country.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy
in yielding me this time, and I of course am horrified by the picture
of the slaughtered sheep that was shown here.
But let us talk for a moment about why this is offered. And I would
suggest to my colleague from Texas that it is not superheated rhetoric.
I would
[[Page H5716]]
have invited him to go to Clackamas County, just outside of Portland,
in my district, for a tragic incident a few months ago where the
Wildlife Services agent placed a cluster of canisters of sodium cyanide
on the land of a tree farmer. These so-called M-44 devices, once
triggered, explode and release sodium cyanide gas several feet in the
air. If sodium cyanide makes contact with the mucus membrane of an
animal, touching the mouths, eyes, or nose, the animal will suffer a
miserable death.
On a tree farm in Estacada, a family pet, a German Shepherd named
Buddy, made the fatal mistake of stumbling across an M-44 loaded with
sodium cyanide. I will not show my colleagues the picture of Buddy, his
face dried with blood and foam caked on his face. But what if that
canister had been dealt with by a child instead of a German Shepherd?
Currently, in my State, citizens have gathered 103,976 signatures to
place on a Statewide ballot a measure to restrict the use of inhumane
traps and poison. They do not want the USDA personnel setting out land
mines on their private or public lands. These traps set by the Wildlife
Services are just as dangerous as the poison.
Dozens of people in the State of Oregon have come forward to tell of
their tragic experiences with steel-jawed traps, leghold traps, neck
snares, and Conibear traps.
A chief copetitioner of the Oregon ballot measure is Jennifer
Kirkpatrick, from the rural community of Scappoose, who has the story
of being in a stream and had the misfortune of having her hand caught
in the vice-like grip of one of these traps, a device set out in the
water to crush the vertebrae of beaver, muskrat, or otter that swims
into it. She indicated it was the most excruciating pain she had ever
endured.
Because the trap was so large and powerful, she could not free her
hand, with the trap crushing it. I think we can all imagine a car door
slammed on our hand. She had to walk a quarter mile to her car and then
drive several miles to a neighbor's home. The neighbor struggled 15
minutes to pry open that trap. She experienced a near complete loss of
the use of her hand for 9 years. And being a seamstress, she was out of
work and feared that her career would be over.
No place in Oregon, nor any other place in the West, is a logical
area for the widespread use of these horrific traps and poisons at
taxpayer expense. This amendment helps correct the problem. It does not
stop private individuals who want to protect their livestock as they
see fit. It simply requires the ranchers to assume the responsibility
if they want to use these lethal weapons. I strongly urge approval of
the amendment.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman
from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) that the Committee do now rise.
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the
request.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the motion to rise is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) controls 11
minutes and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) controls 7 minutes.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
DeFazio amendment again this year, and for the basic same reasons we
have in the past. There is a lot of misinformation about what this
amendment does and does not do.
And I concede the point to the gentleman, and all of those who are
proposing this amendment, that they are opposed to killing of wolves
and coyotes and other animals that do great damage to American
agriculture. I concede that point. But from the standpoint of what this
amendment does, I think it is important to understand, first off, that
the Wildlife Services program is a highly specialized organization
within the United States Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service. Wildlife Services uses, uses now, contrary
to the previous Speaker, integrated wildlife management techniques and
strategies to minimize the negative impacts of wildlife on livestock
and crops, human health and safety, property, and threatened and
endangered species.
{time} 2000
If this amendment were to pass, the $7 million, the DeFazio amendment
would redirect the $10 million in additional funds by prohibiting their
use for livestock protection programs. Because of the cooperative
nature of this program, a $7 million cut and a redirection of funds
actually results in a total loss in the program of $23.7 million.
Now, this also will knock out $2 million of the bill's appropriated
funds to increase wildlife services that will be dealing with the
rabies control program and collaborations. The DeFazio amendment would
not only cause a loss of $2 million for this important program, but
would also cause an additional loss of cooperative money by local
sponsors.
The funding for these wildlife professionals provides the basis that
allows the State to devote funds for permanent personnel to perform all
of the duties of animal control. By limiting the duties that wildlife
professionals perform, we undermine the entire program.
Please oppose this misguided amendment.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the DeFazio-
Bass-Morella amendment. What this amendment does is it would simply cut
$7 million from the Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Services
program, which would bring their budget to $28.7 million, as requested
by the administration.
Wildlife Services spends millions of dollars annually to kill more
than 100,000 coyotes, foxes, bears, mountain lions, and other predators
in the Western United States. Although non-lethal alternatives do
exist, Wildlife Services chooses to shoot, poison, trap and even club
to death both target and non-target animals.
This is a taxpayer subsidy, as has been mentioned; and this taxpayer
subsidy gives ranchers a disincentive to seek alternative methods of
livestock protection that might be far more effective.
The USDA predator control methods are non-selective, they are
inefficient, they are inhumane. Aerial gunning, sodium cyanide
poisoning, steel-jawed leghold traps and neck snares are all common
methods used by Wildlife Services. These techniques have been known to
kill pets, as well as endangered and threatened species. Much of the
killing is conducted before livestock is released into an area, with
the expectation that predators will become a problem. However, killing
wildlife to protect livestock is effective only if the individual
animals who attack livestock are removed. Targeting the entire
population is needlessly cruel, it wastes taxpayer dollars, and it can
be counterproductive.
With this amendment, the Wildlife Services program could leave intact
the research, education, and exchange of new information on wildlife
damage management and non-lethal methods. Programs would also be funded
to assist with non-lethal predator protection services and in cases to
protect human and endangered species lives.
Reducing the proposed budget of Wildlife Services to the
administration's request would send the message, would send the
message, that efforts must be made to implement humane methods of
protecting livestock. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Walden).
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Texas earlier
[[Page H5717]]
used a little better quality shot of this. My colleague from Maryland
who just spoke talked about how we need more humane protection of
livestock. Let me tell the gentlewoman from Maryland about this
picture. Let me tell about this picture.
Twenty-eight sheep were killed in one night by cougars. There were
guard dogs, four of them, guarding these sheep. There were sheep
herders on site when Sky Crebbs, a rancher in my district, ended up
with this kill. This photo is so gruesome, I covered these up. My
colleague from Texas did not do that. But it is so gruesome, I covered
them up.
This is not unusual. I want to enter into the record, Mr. Chairman, a
letter from Phil Ward, who is the head of the Oregon Department of
Agriculture. It says: ``According to a recent survey conducted by the
Oregon Agricultural Statistics Service, more than $158 million of
annual damage to Oregon agricultural products occurs from wildlife.''
All across my district, Mr. Speaker, we are seeing more and more
incidents of predator problems: 144 pets were killed in Oregon in 1997,
165 in 1998, and 203 in 1999.
Let me share with you some headlines out of our local newspapers:
``Agents track cougar that tussled with man.''
``Cougar attacks and kills colt. Upset rancher threatens suit.''
``Cougars come home to town.''
``Calls from residents rise as the once elusive cat grows.''
``Annie Hoye figured raccoons had gotten into an attached shed last
spring when a banging against the side of the house woke her early one
morning. But that afternoon she found the eviscerated carcass of a deer
in her backyard. `It must have been about how farmers feel when they
find a mutilated cow and blame it on aliens,' she said.''
``Cougar shot in La Grande neighborhood.''
``Cougar seen in Ashland still around.''
``Elk herds continue nose-dive because of predators.''
``USDA employee kills big cougar out at Cottage Grove.'' My friend
and colleague from the fourth district may be interested in this one:
``A 7-foot 5\1/2\ inch male weighing 135 pounds was tracked down and
shot after it killed its 30th sheep on a ranch near Elkton.''
This is a serious problem if you are in a rural district like mine,
with 70,000 square miles. Part of the problem is the Federal Government
is the landlord of over half that land.
So I believe these people, who pay taxes and farm and ranch in this
country, have the right to expect that the neighbor, the Federal
Government on over 55 percent of the land, has an obligation to help
manage this.
That is why, with predators on the rise, we should not be cutting
funds. We should be using as many non-lethal efforts as possible, but
that is not always possible. When you get a 7-foot cougar that has
killed its 30th lamb, it is time for action before it kills a person.
Mr. Chairman, I include the letter referred to above for the Record.
Department of Agriculture,
Salem, OR, May 19, 2000.
Hon. Joe Skeen,
Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Skeen: Early next week the House of
Representatives will vote on appropriations for the U.S.
Department of Agriculture and related agencies.
I urge your support for full funding of the USDA-APHIS
Wildlife Services programs. The Oregon Department of
Agriculture works in cost-sharing and program relationships
with USDA Wildlife Services to address the concerns of
wildlife damage to agriculture crops in Oregon. Many
producers also provide cost-share for the use of this
program.
According to a recent survey conducted by the Oregon
Agricultural Statistics Service, more than $158 million of
annual damage to Oregon agricultural products occurs from
wildlife.
APHIS/Wildlife Services also provides services through
cooperative agreements with thousands of entities nationwide,
including state game and fish agencies, state departments of
health, city and local governments, school districts,
colleges, airports, the U.S. military, Indian tribes,
National Wildlife Refuges, departments of transportation,
homeowner associations, electrical companies and many other
parties.
I strongly request that you oppose any reduction in
funding, and fully support adequate increases for necessary
staffing and program costs.
Sincerely,
Phillip C. Ward,
Director.
____
State Department of Agriculture,
Salem, Oregon, May 18-19, 2000.
Board of Agriculture Opposes Any Reduction to the USDA-APHIS Wildlife
Services Budget
Whereas agriculture is a leading economic force in Oregon
and the United States, and
Whereas the Wildlife Damage Survey identified in excess of
$158 million of annual damage to Oregon agricultural
products, and
Whereas agricultural producers implement $6 million of
wildlife damage prevention efforts themselves and still
require professional assistance from USDA-APHIS Wildlife
Services, and
Whereas USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services delivers services to
minimize the impact of wildlife damage which are vital to
agriculture and to all segments of the population.
Be it resolved that the Oregon State Board of Agriculture
opposes any reduction to the USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services
budget.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) has 4\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) has 6
minutes remaining.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, if I could inquire on the time, I yielded
myself 3 minutes, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) 3 minutes,
the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) 2 minutes, and the
gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) 3 minutes.
How did we get that one-half minute in there?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) did not
consume the entire amount of time and yielded back one-half minute.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Deutsch).
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment where hopefully all
of my colleagues will spend a little bit of time understanding the
specifics of the amendment. It is an amendment which truly is very
simple when we understand it and we look at the specifics of the
amendment.
The specifics of the amendment deal with a corporate welfare program
that exists in the United States of America as bad as any corporate
welfare program that exists in this country. It specifically applies to
ranchers, specifically to a function that there is no justifiable
policy reason that taxpayers across this country should be subsidizing
these ranchers. That is the program. That is what we are talking about.
We are not talking about whether or not coyotes should exist or
whether or not ranchers should have the ability to do animal control.
That is not what this amendment is about. What this amendment is about
is taxpayer money being spent on a private function without a public
purpose. That is what it is about, and that is why I urge the adoption
of the amendment.
In a sort of Hobson effect, though, this is a program which is not
even effective, which is one of the weird things about this; that there
are in fact more effective ways to deal with animal control that have
been done in many places without the use and the methods that are used
by the Animal Damage Control program.
This is a program that the public holds in poor regard because it
reflects a callous attitude and a waste of taxpayers' dollars. This
program amounts to nothing more than corporate welfare. I urge the
adoption of the amendment.
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong
support of the amendment sponsored by the gentleman from Oregon to
decrease funding by $7 million for the Department of Agriculture's
Wildlife Services program.
This program is costly, unnecessary, inhumane, dangerous and
continues to expand eliminating any landowner incentive to control
predators through other more cost-effective and humane measures.
The predator control program is not cost-effective and its funding
has increased to almost $10 million annually. Sheep and cattle killed
by predators could be replaced at one-third the cost the government
spends in trying to control predators. These predatory control methods
are dangerous for the animals, but some of the forms of predatory
control such as aerial gunning are also high risk to Wildlife Service
employees. Since 1996, six employees have been killed in four
helicopter and plane crashes, the most recent occurred on March 27,
2000.
[[Page H5718]]
Ranchers should be taking care of predator control problems
themselves. This amendment would not prevent ranchers and farmers from
doing so. Currently, because of the federal subsidy, ranchers are
discouraged from using more effective, humane, less-costly, and non-
lethal methods such as guard dogs, electric sound and light devices, or
predator exclusion fencing. There is no incentive for ranchers to use
these types of control methods because the government is paying to kill
the wild animals which attack these farmers' livestock. I don't object
to farmers and ranchers protecting their property but I do object to
the federal government paying for it.
Again, this program is costly, unnecessary, inhumane, and dangerous.
I urge the adoption of the amendment.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the
DeFazio-Bass-Morella amendment to the Agriculture Appropriations bill.
While I know the Wildlife Services engage in a number of valuable
programs to mitigate human-wildlife conflicts, such as the bird control
program at Denver International Airport, I am troubled by the reckless
and seemingly inhumane procedures undertaken by this agency.
The most disturbing, not to mention dangerous, Wildlife Services
endeavor is the Aerial Hunting Campaign. Over the past 10 years, 31
people have been injured, 7 of them fatally, in Wildlife Services
aircraft accidents. Low altitude, low speed flying in remote areas is
invariably high risk. To me this seems like a hazardous and costly way
to go about predator control. As if that was not enough, Aerial Gunning
does not help reduce livestock losses because it does not target
offending animals, predators that we know are feeding on livestock.
For my colleagues who are not swayed by the disturbing, twisted
excesses of the Wildlife Services program, I encourage you to look at
the flawed economics behind this program. For every dollar of reported
livestock damage, the Wildlife Services spends three dollars in the
West to fix the problem.
The DeFazio-Bass amendment offered today is less punitive than
amendments offered in previous years. It allows the agency to retain
adequate funding, but compels the program to use tax dollars to kill
the public's wildlife through a subsidy for private ranchers.
I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Walden of Oregon) having assumed the chair, Mr. Nussle, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4461)
making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.
____________________