[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 88 (Tuesday, July 11, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H5766-H5791]
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} 1245
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 rose on Monday, July
10, 2000, pending was amendment No. 39 by the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. DeFazio).
Pursuant to the order of the House of that day, no further amendments
to the bill shall be in order except pro forma amendments offered by
the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations or
their designees for the purpose of debate and amendments printed in the
Congressional Record numbered 9, 29, 32, 37, 48, 61, and 68, which may
be offered only by the Member designated in the order of the House or a
designee, or the Member who caused it to be printed or a designee,
shall be considered read, shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a
division of the question.
Eight and one-half minutes of debate remain on amendment No. 39 by
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio). The gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
DeFazio) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Skeen) has 6 minutes remaining.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with
the primary author of the amendment, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
DeFazio).
I want to be clear, in light of my responsibilities on the
Subcommittee on
[[Page H5767]]
Interior Appropriations, that the recovery programs for threatened and
endangered species conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will
not be adversely affected.
It is my understanding that the gentleman does not intend to impede
recovery programs directed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
sometimes performed in part by the Wildlife Services.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, it is not my intent to impede recovery
programs for threatened or endangered species administered by the Fish
and Wildlife Service.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I want to emphasize
that when these rare killings of threatened or endangered species do
occur, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Wildlife Services
should only use the most humane method of killing, such as shooting or
foot snares with tranquilizer tabs.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will again yield, I agree
that the Fish and Wildlife Service and Wildlife Services should use the
most humane methods in the conduct of their responsibilities under the
Endangered Species Act.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from New Mexico
yielding.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, this may be the most ill-conceived amendment that we
have considered during debate on this bill.
Some have called this nothing more than corporate welfare. Well, I
will tell my colleagues that in Idaho, Wyoming and Montana, what the
Federal Government has done, at a cost of $1 million apiece, is they
have reintroduced wolves into the State of Idaho as ``nonessential
experimental populations.'' They are costing ranchers and farmers
thousands and thousands of dollars. Not only are they costing ranchers
and farmers money, they are decimating our elk and deer herds.
Ranchers would like to take care of this problem themselves.
Unfortunately, there are substantial penalties and fines involved. It
has been said that the Fish and Wildlife Service does not use other
nonlethal means of trying to maintain control of these predators. The
fact is that we capture them, we trap them, we have taken them to other
parts of the State, as far away as 300 and 400 miles; and we find that
within 2, 3, 4 days, a week, they are back in their original location,
oftentimes.
In fact, last week I was in Idaho in the Saw Tooth Mountains, and I
bought this book; and I would like to take just a moment to reintroduce
my colleagues or introduce my colleagues to the Saw Tooth pack of
wolves in the State of Idaho. Now, I have to admit, these are beautiful
animals. In fact, if we look at this page here, this is their class
picture in the nice, soft focus. This is Komoto, the alpha leader. He
is regal, confident and benevolent. This here is Moto. He is of middle
rank. He is bright, curious and energetic. He also initiates play.
Unfortunately, let me show my colleagues what play looks like to Bambi.
This is what play looks like to Bambi.
Now, I will tell my colleagues, they are causing great problems in
the State of Idaho. But we knew as part of the deal of reintroduction
of these wolves as a nonessential experimental population is that we
would have to manage some of them. We would have to kill some of the
wolves that got out of control. That was part of the deal.
Unfortunately, we have had to do that. Anyone that thought we were
going to reintroduce wolves into Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Minnesota, or
New York had better be prepared to deal with the problem wolves that
occur. It is not just in the wilderness. We have mothers that are
standing by school buses in Salmon, Idaho, because wolves are on the
borders of the communities.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time and for his support in opposition to this amendment. This is
something that is vitally important to my congressional district where
much of it is mountainous land where we have sheep herds; we have other
livestock that are threatened by coyotes. It has become a very, very
serious problem in the State of Virginia. This is not just a Western
problem.
Unfortunately, Virginia only receives $35,000 for the entire State
for predator control, and we are losing the battle to preserve a
valuable resource in our State. For the first time in history, the
Virginia sheep flock has dipped below 100,000 animals. Conversely, the
coyote population is growing at a rate of between 20 percent and 50
percent, according to the Virginia Department of Game and Inland
Fisheries. The limited amount of money received from the Wildlife
Services Program only funds one trapper who has to monitor the traps in
17 counties. The USDA agrees that our area is desperately understaffed.
It is impossible for one staff member to monitor 17 counties under the
Wildlife Services Program.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits USDA Wildlife Service (WS)
professionals from attempting to prevent wildlife damage. This Wildlife
Service program is directed by professional wildlife biologists and is
vital to managing wildlife in order to protect human health and safety,
prevent environmental damage and to protect agricultural and rural
economic interests.
Many perceive this as a strictly Western issue. Not so. Virginia has
one of the largest sheep populations in the Eastern United States and
Wildlife Services helps protect this valuable resource, valued at $8.1
million. Unfortunately Virginia only receives $35,000 for predator
control and we are losing the battle. For the first time in history,
the Virginia sheep flock has dipped below 100,000 animals. Conversely,
the coyote population is growing at a rate between 20% and 50%
according to VA Department of Game and inland fisheries.
The limited amount of money received from the Wildlife Services
Program only funds one trapper who has to monitor the traps in 17
counties. USDA agrees that our area is desperately understaffed. It is
impossible for one staff member to monitor seventeen counties under the
Wildlife Services Program. Because the trapper has responsibility over
such a large area he was only able to trap 40 coyotes in Highland
county last year. The coyote population is thought to be in the
thousands.
I have asked the Department to reexamine their geographic allocation
of resources within the Wildlife Services Program to see if more staff
can be dedicated to our area but that would take existing resources
from an existing program, destroying the investment already made in
that area.
Supporters of this amendment will say that the program is bad for the
environment. This is simply not true. Many Wildlife Services projects
have benefited threatened and endangered species. Wildlife Services
personnel work closely with officials from U.S. Fish and Wildlife or
the appropriate state agency. Last year, Wildlife Services helped to
protect 84 threatened or endangered species from predation. These
projects were conducted across 26 states, Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands and Guam.
What we need are additional resources for this vital program. We
can't afford to cut this program. Cutting funds would only hurt those
we are trying to help the most in this bill, citizens of rural America.
Make no mistake, this amendment isn't about a budget or an economic
issue, this is about animal rights. This amendment is about which
animals are to be protected and which aren't. The sponsors of the
amendment want to protect the noxious beasts that are driving family
farms out of business. I want to protect the animals that farmers,
ranchers and shepherds are counting on to provide for their own
families well being.
Vote ``no'' on this amendment and ``yes'' for rural America.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, although we need to treat our
farmers well, we need to treat our animals humanely, so I rise to
support the DeFazio-Bass amendment as a humane effort to deal with our
wildlife.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment which curtails the funding for what was
formerly known as the Animal Damage Control program.
This amendment cuts $7 million in funding for the Department of
Agriculture's inappropriately named ``Wildlife Services'' program. I
say
[[Page H5768]]
that it is inappropriately named, because the program does nothing to
serve in the best interests of wildlife. It is, instead, a program
whose purpose is to help farmers cope with natural predators who may
prey on their livestock. While I believe that helping farmers is a
laudable goal, the problem is that the way this program is
administered, little help is provided and much damage caused.
Each year, this program indiscriminately kills 90,000 coyotes, foxes,
bears and mountain lions. It is indiscriminate because there are few
controls to ensure that the animals being slaughtered are tied to
attacks on livestock. Oftentimes, young cubs are caught and killed, and
on occasion, even a domesticated dog or cat will be mistakenly felled.
This is simply not appropriate--and it should be stopped.
Wildlife Services is cruel because Wildlife Services still insists on
using barbaric methods to handle these animals--including poisons,
snares, leg-hold traps and even aerial hunting. Sometimes, these
animals are simply clubbed to death. Harp Seals are not the only
animals that need protection from this brutal practice. We can do
better than this--humane animal control techniques exist in our modern
world. We can relocate animals that have caused problems.
How is it that we can build an internationally-sponsored space
station or clone animals, but yet we cannot find a way to treat our
animals humanely? Do we need to spray poison in the face of animals
that can contaminate other animals, or even humans, it comes in contact
with afterwards? Must we kill not only the offending animal, but also
every innocent scavenger that happens upon its corpse? In this
scenario, must we curtail the hunting of our nation's beloved national
bird, the Bald Eagle and instead subject him to this brutal and
inhumane hunting method.
This program has been ineffective, and roundly criticized for
decades. It was fully reviewed by advisory committees under the
Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Carter Administrations--each of which
suggested numerous reforms, but none have been adopted.
The General Accounting Office (GAO) similarly released a report in
1995 that found the program to be largely ineffective. Studies have
shown the coyotes have adapted to our killing techniques much better
than we have adapted towards more humane methods of predator control.
Despite a 71% increase in funding for these programs between 1983 and
1993, coyotes have compensated for the culling of their species by
simply having more pups. Surely, we have been out-foxed here!
In addition, unlike in the past the amendment will fund Wildlife
Services at the level proposed in the President's budget for FY 2001
(about 28.7 million for operations). Simply cutting the excess $7
million subsidy provided in the Committee bill over and above what the
Administration considers necessary to carry out Wildlife Service
operations nationwide.
We are smarter than this. This House is smarter than this. As a
result, I urge my colleagues to support this sensible and humane
amendment being offered by Congressmen DeFazio and Bass.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
There is one issue and one issue only before the House: shall the
taxpayers provide a special subsidy to Western ranchers. Approximately
$7 million a year is spent on the wasteful, ineffective, indiscriminate
killing of wildlife in the Western U.S. and, as we heard from my
colleague from Oregon last night, it is not working. Maybe we should
try something else.
After more than a half century, there are more coyotes, more
dispersed. They do not understand coyotes' biology. Kill the alphas and
the rest of them go disperse and breed. They kill nontarget species.
Here is a golden eagle. Well, here are some predators right here. We
can see these little guys have definitely been feasting on sheep. No,
they have not been, but they were killed too.
This program should end. There is no effect on public safety, despite
what we hear from others. Bird strikes at airports, rabbit are
dangerous to humans, brown tree snakes, dusky geese, endangered
species, all of those could continue to be controlled by a nearly $30
million-a-year budget for the animal damage control folks. Farmers and
ranchers would be free to hire or themselves use any legal method of
control for any threats to their flocks. Why send a Federal employee to
take care of their private interests? I cannot call a Federal employee
to take care of the possums, deer and raccoons who transgress on my
property, probably from the nearby BLM. They will not come. But if I
was a rancher, they would. Now, why is this exclusive subsidy made
available?
Do not be cowed by the howls of protests from the privileged few who
are enjoying this subsidy. Ignore the false sense of their red herring
arguments and stop fleecing the taxpayers here today. Vote for this
amendment.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) to close debate.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Today I rise as chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus that
strongly opposes this amendment. On behalf of myself and the other
leaders of the caucus who try to speak for the sportsmen of this
country, we hope that our colleagues will vote this amendment down.
As sportsmen we are concerned with reserving populations of wildlife
for future generations, as well as preserving our right to hunt and
fish. The hard reality is that this amendment would create unnecessary
and increased wildlife losses.
Contrary to what my colleagues have been told, Wildlife Services
reduces the overall amount of wildlife taken by selectively targeting
only those animals that are causing damage. In Kansas where Wildlife
Services does not conduct a program, the number of animals killed by
others is dramatically higher, not less.
But more importantly, this amendment will not only target animals
that are bothering ranchers, if part of the budget is eliminated that
is being talked about, many areas will be left with no service on
protection at all. They will simply eliminate the position because
there will not be enough to do. This means that other Wildlife Services
functions like airport safety and human protection will not be
performed.
Also, areas like northern Minnesota will be left unprotected because
species such as the timber wolf can only be effectively taken by
professional trappers who know what they are doing. Here we have a
species that was protected by the Federal Government, whose population
has exploded to double what it was and double the original range, has
moved out of the timber area into the farming country, and has caused
us a huge amount of problems. If this amendment passes, there will be
no way to help those farmers with these livestock losses. It is not
feasible for them to control these animals themselves because they are
very difficult to hunt or trap.
Maybe, if we release some of these wolves in Eugene, Oregon, or
Minneapolis or Boston or San Francisco or New York City, we would have
a different attitude on the part of some Members of this House. This is
an irresponsible amendment that will do more harm than good. Please
join the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus in opposing this amendment.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the DeFazio-Bass
Amendment, which funds the Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services'
program for fiscal year 2001 (FY 01) at the level requested by the
President, and prohibits funds in the bill from being used for lethal
predator control methods.
Put briefly, the Wildlife Services' methods of predator control are
ineffective, wasteful and inhumane.
Despite increased spending and increased killing between 1983 and
1993, there was no decrease in the number of livestock lost to
predators. Clearly, this is a program in need of serious re-evaluation.
Further, as a co-chair of the Congressional Friends of Animals
Caucus, I would be remiss if I did not point out the killing methods
currently employed by the Wildlife Services' program are excessively
cruel and unselective--commonly capturing both wild and domestic non-
target animals alike. These methods--including the use of
indiscriminate aerial gunning, steel-jawed leghold traps, poisonous
gas, gasoline, smoke and fire--are both inhumane and brutal.
The existence of alternative methods of predator control--including
the use of guard dogs, sound and light devices, fencing, carcass
removal and night penning--make these practices largely unnecessary. In
those instances where lethal control practices are necessary, namely to
protect threatened or endangered species, and to protect human health,
the DeFazio-Bass amendment allows Wildlife Services to carry out lethal
predator control.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
support this balanced, common sense amendment which is endorsed
[[Page H5769]]
by taxpayer, environmental and humane organizations around the country.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
the DeFazio-Bass amendment.
This amendment eliminates the proposed increase in funding for the
United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Wildlife Services'
predator control programs. Regrettably, the USDA has participated in
some needless and particularly harsh predator control methods. The
DeFazio-Bass Amendment highlights this problem and ensures that the
USDA is not rewarded for a program that is wasteful, ineffective and
unnecessarily cruel to animals.
This cost saving and compassionate amendment reduces funding for the
Wildlife Services program to the Administration's budget request. This
amendment will not cripple our Wildlife Services predator program nor
will it impede USDA efforts to protect public health and safety. The
DeFazio-Amendment simply reduces the program in a way that will allow
the USDA to place its operations in alignment with public values.
Mr. Chairman, I believe Americans would be outraged to learn that
their hard earned tax dollars are being used to set out Steel-Jaw
Leghold Traps on our public lands. These devices are banned in 89
countries and a number of states, including my state of New Jersey,
because they are a cruel and unusual form of animal punishment that
cannot discriminate.
Probably the most egregious predator control practice is ``Denning.''
Federal Wildlife Service employees, who practice ``Denning'' smoke
coyote pups from their dens and then kill the pups by clubbing them
with shovels when they emerge.
Mr. Chairman, American's tax dollars should not be subsidizing these
activities. It is unthinkable that we are spending so much money to
kill so many animals by such cruel means. While our Wildlife Services
predator program has been effective in some areas, such as controlling
bird populations around airports, its lethal predator control
activities in western states are unacceptable. Reducing funding for the
Lethal Predator program by $7 million will target its most wasteful and
needless activities, allowing the USDA to concentrate on more effective
compassionate measures.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes good fiscal sense and it is
environmentally sound. Taxpayers should not subsidize the western
livestock industry, and we should not subsidize killing animals in
indiscriminate and cruel ways. I urge my colleagues to vote ``Yes'' on
the DeFazio-Bass amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on this amendment has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. DeFazio).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DeFAZIO. 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 Oregon (Mr. DeFazio)
will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SKEEN. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the
distinguished subcommittee chairman regarding the use of the farm
planning and analysis system known as FINPACK.
USDA, through the Farm Service Agency, has determined that this
planning and analysis system that has proven to be a useful tool for
Minnesota producers is to be terminated as of September 30 this year,
the year 2000.
I am seeking to develop report language that directs the Farm Service
Agency to develop an effective interface between FINPACK and the Farm
and Home Plan presently used by the Farm Service Agency. It is my
understanding that the generic interface that is presently developed is
not capable of long-term and effective transfer of information.
{time} 1300
It is necessary to take FINPACK data and reformat it into the Farm
and Home Plan format.
The Farm Service Agency has indicated that they are seeking
assistance from the University of Minnesota to accomplish this. The
University of Minnesota has informed me that they are a long way today
from accomplishing this task because currently there is not a contract
in place between the university and the Farm Service Agency to develop
this interface.
It is essential that Minnesota producers have an interface that
effectively works at field level and is effective in the future, into
the future, allowing producers to use the superior management tool that
is FINPACK.
I would ask the subcommittee chairman to work with me in the
conference committee or in the report language to allow for the time
required to develop the interface that is necessary.
I would seek also to delay any implementation of the Farm and Home
Plan until an effective and long-term interface is in place.
Is this something that the distinguished chairman would be in a
position to assist us with?
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his concern. I
will work with him to assure that the FSA provides a smooth transition
to a common computing environment for Minnesota FINPACK users. FSA has
provided me with a copy of the contract they are entering into with the
University of Minnesota to facilitate that endeavor.
In addition, I wish to provide for the Record a letter from Mr. Keith
Kelly, administrator for the Farm Service Agency, that outlines the
agency's plan for using and integrating agency software with their
financial software, including FINPACK, and the proprietary software
mentioned in the gentleman's statement.
USDA,
Washington, DC, June 16, 2000.
Joe Skeen,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Skeen: This is in reference to the continued usage
of the FINPACK software by the Farm Service Agency (FSA)
offices in Minnesota. FSA field offices have been required to
use the Agency's automated system called the Farm and Home
Plan (FHP) system for many years to produce FHP's for our
farm borrowers and to perform various farm planning and
analysis functions. With the exception of Minnesota, the FHP
system has been used successfully by FSA field offices in all
other States. FSA has continued to fund the yearly
maintenance and allow Minnesota to use FINPACK until the
Agency had developed an interface that would allow for all of
the historical FINPACK data to be loaded into the official
FHP database housed at each of the FSA field offices.
FSA has developed a generic interface that will provide the
capability for data from the FINPACK system to be loaded into
the official FHP database. As a result, the FSA field offices
in Minnesota will be required to use the Agency's official
PC-FHP system beginning in Fiscal Year 2001. The farm
borrower community, banks, other lending institutes, and farm
management educational organizations will be able to continue
their use of FINPACK to perform farm/financial planning and
analysis functions as they have done in the past. The only
difference will be in the format and layout of the data
file(s) sent to the Minnesota FSA field offices for loading
into the official FHP database. Once the data file(s) is
received by the Minnesota FSA field office staffs, the
generic interface will be used to load the data into official
FHP database.
This generic interface can also be used to load data into
the official FHP database from other farm/financial software
packages that are being used by our farm loan borrowers,
thereby not limiting its use to FINPACK only, but opening the
door for other farm/financial software vendors to interface
with FSA's FHP system. Additionally, this generic interface
can be used to load data into the official FHP database from
farm/financial software packages being used by banks and
other lending institutes and farm management educational
organizations that support FSA's farm loan borrowers. In
regard to the historical FINPACK data, FSA will be
contracting with the University of Minnesota for the software
development of a data conversion routine that will provide
for the one-time data conversion of 5 years of financial and
production information from the FINPACK system into FSA's
personal computer-FHP (PC-FHP) system. The cost for the
software development for the data conversion routine is
$25,000. The estimated one-time benefit of implementing an
automated solution for converting 5 years of financial and
production information into the Agency's PC-FHP system is
$300,383.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) has invested millions
of dollars in establishing a Common Computing Environment
(CCE) in our field service centers. These service centers
provide co-located offices for the three sister agencies:
FSA, Rural Development (RD), and the Natural Resources and
Conservation Service (NRCS). The establishment of the service
centers provides for one-
[[Page H5770]]
stop shopping for our customers. In order to provide this
service for our customers, FSA, RD, and NRCS must have a
common hardware and software platform in the field service
center offices. Our CCE efforts have established the standard
hardware and software platform in the field offices, and the
FHP system is part of that standard. The information obtained
from the FHP System is tied locally in each field office and
is tied to other mission critical applications. The
information is then fed to a central computer system enabling
Senior Management to monitor the Agency's portfolio
nationally using the same criteria.
In order for USDA's CCE efforts to continue successfully
and improve customer service in the field service center
offices, it is very important that the software platform on
the new CCE equipment be uniform and controlled. Uniformity
and control of our software applications help to ensure that
all of our customers are being serviced in a like manner.
This means that all of our field offices are using the same
software applications, such as the FHP system, to service our
customers and meet the Agency's business needs. To allow one
State, such as Minnesota, to deviate from this common
software platform, would impede the efforts of USDA to
improve the Agency's computing environment and its ability to
provide better service to our customers.
From the financial standpoint, the PC-FHP system was
developed by FSA for approximately $250,000. When the cost of
the development is divided among the 2,500 field offices, the
development per copy is less than $100 per office. The PC-FHP
software is currently loaded on more than 10,000 PC's. If the
cost for development is divided by the number of PC's, the
cost per PC is around $25. The annual maintenance/enhancement
cost for the PC-FHP system is $120,000. When the cost for
annual maintenance is divided by the number of PC's, the cost
per PC is $12. In regard to Minnesota, FSA is currently
paying $150 per site license for annual maintenance of the
FINPACK software. The cost for a new site license for the
FINPACK software is normally $600. However, the Center for
Farm Financial Management at the University of Minnesota
recently quoted FSA a price of $495 for a new FINPACK site
license. Based on this information, if FSA were to buy
FINPACK site licenses for our 2,500 field offices, the cost
would be $1,237,500 with an annual maintenance cost of
$375,000. If the cost for the FINPACK site licenses is
divided by the number of PC's, the cost per PC is around
$123.73. When the cost for annual maintenance of FINPACK is
divided by the number of PC's, the cost per PC is $37.50. The
software and maintenance costs of the PC-FHP are still lower
than those of FINPACK, if not by a wide margin. However,
there are other cost factors to consider. All of FSA's 2,500
field offices have been trained on the use of the PC-FHP
system (this includes Minnesota).
As stated above, with the exception of Minnesota, the FHP
system is being used successfully by FSA field offices in all
other States. If FSA were to implement FINPACK nation-wide,
we would have to retrain the staff in all field offices
(except Minnesota), on how to use the FINPACK software. The
costs associated with this type of training effort would be
in the million plus range. Also, please note that FINPACK is
a commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS) software package. There are
several COTS software packages out on the Market that perform
farm planning an analysis functions, like FINPACK. If FSA
were to consider replacing the PC-FHP with a COTS software
package, it would have to be done as a competitive
procurement effort. Considering these facts and cost
information, FSA sees no benefit in replacing the PC-FHP
system nationwide with the FINPACK software.
With the development of the interface, data conversion
software, and the cost information and justification
presented in the above paragraphs, FSA remains firm in its
decision to stop support of FINPACK in the Minnesota field
offices and require them to use the Agency's official PC-FHP
system. We request your assistance in this effort.
Sincerely,
Keith Kelly,
Acting Administrator.
Mr. MINGE. I thank the gentleman very much.
I should add that we have received a letter from the distinguished
chairman, and have had an opportunity to analyze that and feel that
there is some additional information we could provide the gentleman and
perhaps include in the Record about the ongoing difficulties we have in
trying to complete this task.
I really look forward to the opportunity to work with the gentleman
on this.
Mr. SKEEN. I thank the gentleman. I think we can make a good deal
working together. I am ready to do that.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much and include
the aforementioned letter.
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, July 10, 2000.
Hon. Joe Skeen,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Skeen: I have received your written
opposition to the proposed amendment to allow the usage of
FINPACK by Minnesota FSA offices. We have researched this
issue, and wish to respond to those points as follows:
1. ``FSA is only terminating the use of 44 pieces of
FINPACK software in FSA offices in Minnesota in order to
facilitate a common computing environment for all FSA offices
beginning October 1, 2000.''
Minnesota FSA field staff who work with farm loans (MN
Association of Credit Supervisors, NACS) have unanimously
asked for the ability to continue to use FINPACK. The
National Association of Credit Supervisors, NACS (the
employee organization for FSA employees previously part of
FmHA) have passed a resolution supporting the continued use
of FINPACK by MN FSA. Several hundred lenders, educators and
borrowers in MN have contacted congressional offices asking
that MN FSA be allowed to continue to use FINPACK.
This decision reaches far beyond 44 MN FSA offices.
Following is the resolution agreed to by the NACS National
Convention the week of June 19, 2000. Resolution 7. Concern:
Procedure 1910-A [1910.4(b)(9)] indicates that projected
production, income and expenses, and loan repayment plan, may
be submitted on Form FmHA 431-2, ``Farm and Home Plan'', or
other similar plans of operation acceptable to FSA. FSA has
been using the Finpack or similar systems. For example the
Finflo is a 12-month cash flow and takes into account the
inventories. The Finan is a more accurate analysis of the
Borrowers's previous year's actual records. Farm Management
Instructors, many FSA borrowers, and numerous lenders use the
Finpack and similar systems. Proposed Solution: Continue to
allow the use of Finpack or similar automated systems.
As the ``lender of last resort'' and provider of
``supervised credit'' FSA has a mandate to help producers
improve their management capacity and ultimately their
financial viability. FINPACK is used by tens of thousands of
producers, educators, and lenders outside of FSA to make
management decisions. At the same time it is used for credit
analysis and applications. It is dual purpose in that it
helps producers and at the same time provides information for
lenders.
On the other hand, FSA's Farm and Home Plan is used
exclusively for credit applications. The FHP is simply a
computerized method to fill out government forms that have
remained essentially unchanged for more than 50 years. It has
not undergone continual development to help producers manage
the vastly different agriculture of the 21st century versus
the 1950's when the forms were developed. Congress and FSA
need to decide whether FSA loan programs will simply be used
as means to distribute government loans to financially
stressed producers or if these funds will be leveraged by
linking them to educational programs that help producers
succeed in business. FSA initiated Borrower Training programs
several years ago for the very purpose of linking loans to
management training. In many states FINPACK is used as the
primary training material for Borrower Training. It makes no
sense to use an inferior program that does not help producers
when a superior program is already being used. The goal
should be to provide farmers with the financial tools to
succeed.
More than 1,000 Extension Educators use FINPACK to help
producers with farm management training. Allowing and
encouraging FSA to use FINPACK improves agency efficiency and
enhances the benefits producers receive from USDA. In
Minnesota, educators, lenders, and FSA share FINPACK data
files to save producers time and money and improve the
efficiency of each organization. FINPACK allows educators and
lenders to share financial data via email or on disks.
Removing FINPACK from MN FSA offices is a step backward when
considered in the context of how USDA should be serving U.S.
producers. Many people think FSA should be trying to
replicate the cooperation in MN rather than dismantling it.
FSA has stated repeatedly that they plan to develop some of
the management components within the FHP that are currently
in FINPACK, such as monthly cash flows and historical trend
analysis. These developments will be costly and will require
significant time before FSA can make them available to
producers, but they are already available in FINPACK.
2. ``FSA is providing generic interface capabilities for
borrowers, financial institutions and others using FINPACK
and other farm and financial management software packages
with FSA program files.''
According to the University of Minnesota, FSA has not
developed a generic interface. FSA's Farm and Home Plan (FHP)
software stores data in a Microsoft Access database. This
means that any other software program can export data in
Access format and it can be loaded into the Access database.
However, FSA has not addressed how lenders, educators and
producers can transfer producer ID's so that the FHP knows
where to store the data.
The development of a functioning interface would be a
valuable development, however, FSA has previously stated that
software will be available shortly but struggled to deliver
on schedule. Currently FSA has two versions of the Farm and
Home Plan software. One that runs on PC's and one that runs
on their mainframe System 36 machines. These two versions
of the FHP are not interfaced and cannot transfer data. If
FSA can't transfer data internally between their offices
and systems how optimistic can lenders, educators
[[Page H5771]]
and producers that currently supply FINPACK data directly
to FSA in MN be that their data will still be accepted by
FSA after FINPACK use is terminated in MN FSA offices?
3. ``FSA has contracted with the University of Minnesota to
convert 5 years of historical FINPACK data to the FSA
software program used in the other 49 states.''
A contract is not in place, nor has one been initiated. The
U of MN has verbally agreed to develop an interface that will
allow FSA staff to transfer data from FINPACK to FSA's Farm
and Home Plan. FSA can store the five years of data, but
cannot do any analysis on it (FINPACK can store data
indefinitely enabling lenders, educators, mediators, and
producers themselves to undertake useful trend analysis).
4. ``A survey of surrounding states to Minnesota shows that
less than 5 percent of the farm loan borrowers use FINPACK.
And in some instances, almost no borrowers use FINPACK.
According to surveys of FINPACK users, between 30,000 and
60,000 producers use FINPACK annually throughout the country.
Most of these producers use the software with the assistance
of educators, consultants and lenders. Most producers use
FINPACK because they understand the value of financial
information to the management of their businesses, not
because they are required to use it. One question that must
be asked is how FSA determined that 5 percent of their
borrowers use FINPACK. Were borrowers actually surveyed or
did FSA simply ask field staff to estimate the number of
borrowers they think use FINPACK?
5. ``And finally, delinquency rates for Minnesota and the
surrounding states shows that Minnesota has a farm loan
delinquency rate of 19 percent, almost twice the rate of the
surrounding states that don't use FINPACK.''
This statement illustrates the misinformation that
continues to be used in discussions regarding FINPACK. The
FSA loan delinquency rate in the two high volume northwest
Minnesota districts are 19.5 and 23.0 percent. Across the
border in North Dakota it is 21.0 percent. This Red River
Valley area has experienced severe flooding and crop disease
problems for at least five consecutive years. The south
central district of Minnesota has a delinquency rate of 4.5
percent. Across the border in Iowa the delinquency rate is
9.6 percent. Additionally, a study conducted in North Dakota
in December 1996 showed that producers who use FINPACK on
average showed $1,000 to $3,500 improvement in net farm
income per year.
``While I am not suggesting use of FINPACK alone is a
reason for the poor loan delinquencies, I am only suggesting
that FSA should have an opportunity to administer the farm
loan program in a like manner across the nation without
parochial interference. For these reasons, I oppose the
Gentleman's amendment and ask that his amendment be
defeated.''
FINPACK conforms to the Farm Financial Guidelines
established by the Farm Financial Council, a task force
initiated in the early 1990's by the American Banker's
Association. FSA has made no attempt to conform the Farm and
Home Plan to these guidelines. FINPACK meets the FSA
requirements to provide a monthly cash flow for FSA's
Interest Assistance Program. The Farm and Home Plan can't
generate a monthly cash flow and therefore can't meet the
federal regulations for applications for the Interest
Assistance. FSA has attempted to develop a viable Farm and
Home Plan software program for more than 15 years with
marginal success. In the mid 1990's they spent millions on
the aborted attempts to develop farm accounting software. FSA
is a farm credit agency, not a software developer. If
Congress were to announce that it is spending millions of
dollars to write its own software instead of utilizing
better, more comprehensive, market tested products, there
would be outright public revolt. FSA should be held to the
same standard.
In conclusion, FINPACK is an extremely valuable tool that
has offered an opportunity to Minnesota producers to compete
in an extremely difficult economic crisis. It has also
provided an opportunity for Minnesota FSA offices to work
with these producers in an efficient manner.
It would be extremely unfortunate to lose this tool.
Sincerely,
David Minge,
Member of Congress.
Gil Gutknecht,
Member of Congress.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SKEEN. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone). Perhaps we can proceed that way.
Mr. SKEEN. I believe we can do that.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SKEEN. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. PALLONE. I thank the Chairman for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment, but I would like to enter into
this colloquy in lieu of that at this time.
Each year over 660,000 people become ill and more than 300 die from a
single contaminant in a single food. That is the bacterium Salmonella
in eggs. More than 170 outbreaks of Salmonella illness from eggs have
been documented in the past decade. Children, the elderly, and the
immune-impaired are especially at risk.
In an effort to combat the threat to public safety posed by
Salmonella eggs, the administration proposed an egg safety action plan
last December. The Food and Drug Administration is currently in the
process of developing regulations to implement this plan.
It is extremely important that Congress join the administration in an
effort to implement a strong science-based system to locate eggs
contaminated by Salmonella before they reach the consumer.
During the committee process for the agricultural appropriations
bill, my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston),
successfully offered an amendment that was of great concern to a number
of food safety, public health and consumer groups, as well as a host of
Members in this body who regularly work on food safety issues.
Accordingly, I drafted an amendment to strike the Kingston language
from the bill that I intended to offer today.
Specifically, I was concerned about three issues. The first was that
the Kingston amendment would have sharply limited environmental testing
for Salmonella. Producers need to test the chickens' environment, not
just the eggs, to find out if the flock is contaminated with
Salmonella.
My concern on this front is that the Kingston amendment would have
limited environmental testing until 2 or 3 weeks before the end of the
life of the flock. If Salmonella is found at that time, it is far too
late to recall or pasteurize most of the eggs produced by the
contaminated flock, and the public will have been put at risk. Testing
should occur at a much earlier time in order to ensure that if
Salmonella is found, it is found early enough to prevent the
contaminated eggs from reaching consumers.
Secondly, I was concerned that the Kingston language would have
severely restricted the FDA's authority to require the egg industry to
identify contaminated eggs and pasteurize them. Pasteurization
eliminates Salmonella but reduces the value of the egg because it can
no longer be sold as a table egg.
As I understood it, the Kingston amendment would have prevented FDA
from requiring pasteurization on the basis of environmental testing. If
an environment tests positive for Salmonella, the eggs that come from
that environment must be properly tested to determine if they are
contaminated.
While it is true that a positive environment does not automatically
mean eggs from that environment are contaminated, it is also true there
is a great chance there will be contaminated eggs from that
environment. Accordingly, we must have a system that takes the
condition of the environment into consideration during the process of
determining which eggs need to be diverted to pasteurization.
Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I was concerned that the Kingston amendment
would have required the taxpayer to foot the bill for testing eggs for
Salmonella, instead of the egg producers. Many in the Egg Industry
Council contend that it is fair to have the government pick up the tab
for the testing because the government pays for Salmonella testing of
meat and poultry.
It is important to keep two points in mind, however. The first is
that meet meat and poultry producers do not get a free ride. The
government requires them to pay for E. Coli testing. The second is that
although the government does pay for Salmonella testing in meat and
poultry, it also owns the data and makes that data available to the
public. So, in my view, it is very appropriate for egg producers to pay
for the cost of Salmonella testing. It is also important to make sure
that if the government pays for any testing, it owns the data from the
testing.
Fortunately, over the last several weeks negotiations between those
of us concerned about the Kingston amendment, including myself, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the Center for
[[Page H5772]]
Science in the Public Interest, the Food Animal Concerns Trust, and
those supporting the Kingston amendment, including the United Egg
Producers, continued.
It is my understanding that, as a result of those negotiations, the
United Egg Producers have accepted a number of the recommendations the
coalition of food safety, public health, and consumer groups were
advocating be adopted to improve the Kingston amendment.
I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Georgia
and ask him to elaborate on the actions that United Egg Producers have
taken in recent days.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from New Mexico will
continue to yield, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his
interest in working with us. I wanted to say also we will gladly do a
colloquy with the gentleman on this.
First of all, it is important to keep the burden of the solution in
proportion to the problem. According to the President's egg safety
plan, only one in 20,000 eggs contain Salmonella enteritis, and the
presence of this bacteria in a raw egg alone does not guarantee illness
upon consumption.
Secondly, according to the Centers for Disease Control, the number of
reported deaths from this type of Salmonella in eggs during 1999 was
zero.
Third, if we cook the egg, the risk is zero.
As the gentleman can imagine, I disagree with some of his
interpretations of our amendment. For example, the Kingston amendment
does not prohibit environmental testing, nor does it require that such
testing be limited to 2 or 3 weeks before the end of the life of the
flock. The language is not that specific.
In addition, in responding to the gentleman's comments on SE testing,
I simply note that the Federal government not only pays SE testing
costs, it also pays the cost of mandatory inspections for meat, for
poultry, and for processed eggs.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen)
has expired.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SKEEN. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for continuing to
yield to me.
Mr. Chairman, the Federal government not only pays SE testing costs,
it also pays the cost of mandatory inspection for meat, poultry, and
for processed egg products. Moreover, in the frequently-cited
Pennsylvania Egg Quality Assurance Program, the State government pays
testing costs. Some have mentioned E coli testing, but that is not a
problem in eggs.
In short, almost all the relevant precedents support public funding.
There are several other points on which I cannot agree with the
gentleman's characterization of the amendment, but it will be more
productive to describe the informal discussions to which he has also
referred.
Egg producers continue to support the Kingston amendment. However,
they also have been reassured during these informal discussions by
statements from the FDA about the agency's current thinking on egg
safety regulation. The egg producers feel that FDA's current intentions
are considerably more reasonable than was implied in the egg safety
action plan when it was released in December.
I am prepared to negotiate during the conference, and the egg
producers are prepared to support, a compromise package. We cannot know
the outcome of conference negotiations for certain because we cannot
control the Senate. However, both the producers and I promise our best
efforts towards a compromise.
Our position will be as follows: Producers would conduct an
environmental test when flocks are 40 to 45 weeks of age. They would
pay for this test. If additional environmental tests were required,
that could only be on the basis of sound science, and then the costs
would be publicly funded.
In addition, the FDA would need to consider the amount of testing
required in current national and State quality assurance programs in
establishing testing requirements.
Secondly, eggs will only be required to be diverted into processing
based on positive egg tests, which would be required if an
environmental test was positive. Producers would pay for the egg tests.
Although this would not be part of the statutory language, we expect
that the egg labeling proposal from last July will be substantially
modified to take into account comments received. In addition, we expect
that the FDA will consider adding such important steps as vaccination
into its protocols for quality assurance programs.
We have discussed other important issues such as trace-backs, the
safety aspects of grading programs, and consistent enforcement of the
rules, and expect that these can be dealt with also.
I believe this is an accurate and complete description of the
concepts that we have discussed with the FDA, the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), consumer
advocates, and others.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SKEEN. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, in light of the developments and what the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) said, I would ask the gentleman
if he would be willing to work with myself, the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Brown) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) to develop
report language that we can all agree to that would detail how we all
envision this amendment will be implemented.
If my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) will be
working with us to accurately reflect the agreement we have reached, I
will withdraw my amendment.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
I will work with the gentleman and want to make sure that everybody is
on board. We will move towards that. There are obviously no guarantees,
but I am confident that we can come up with a good solution for all
parties.
Mr. PALLONE. I thank the gentleman and I thank the chairman.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield
to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins).
Mr. WATKINS. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the chairman, as he knows,
due to this year's budget numbers, funding was not appropriated for two
additional projects I had requested for the State of Oklahoma. I
believe these projects are vital not only for Oklahoma but also for
several States in the surrounding area.
The first request called for something that the gentleman is familiar
with, the concern for research funding for shipping fever, a severe
respiratory disease to cattle often contracted during the
transportation to market.
Shipping fever is the major cause of clinical disease and death loss
of stock and feed lot cattle in Oklahoma and the southwestern States,
including New Mexico. Nationwide, this disease results in economic
losses to producers of an estimated $1 billion.
The Shipping Fever Research Project is a multidisciplinary, multi-
institutional, multistate project that complements ongoing research in
several universities.
The second request, this was from last week when I went down to
research a USDA project in my area, the second is funding of a USDA
special grant for OSU to conduct research focusing on developing
vegetable production systems for the market areas in the Dallas,
Oklahoma City, Kansas City, and St. Louis regions.
Recent changes in Federal price support programs allow producers the
flexibility to shift into more profitable vegetable production while
retaining basic support.
This grant that enhances the potential for producers to shift into
fresh market vegetable production is great. I think it would be helpful
to the farmers in all the area.
Mr. Chairman, I know the Senate has agreed to fund the vegetable
market project at last year's level, but I would ask for the chairman's
efforts and work to increase the funds in the conference.
I hope that within the budget numbers the gentleman has to work with
that he can find the funds for both of these very, very worthwhile
programs
[[Page H5773]]
and projects to help our farmers and reference. I commend the chairman
for his efforts, and I respectfully ask the chairman's consideration
and help concerning these requests in the upcoming conference.
Mr. SKEEN. I always appreciate the gentleman's earnest efforts on
behalf of his constituents. Accordingly, and with the full knowledge of
our funding constraints, I will attempt to address the gentleman's
concerns in the conference.
Mr. WATKINS. I appreciate the chairman's help very, very much.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).
{time} 1315
Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, yesterday, on Monday, July 10, a farmer
cooperative with many producer members in my district filed for
bankruptcy protection. Hopefully, they will be able to overcome the
financial challenges that lie ahead of them. But with the prices of
farm commodities so low, they face an incredibly difficult financial
obstacle course.
I want to personally thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen)
for his work on this important bill. It will help many farmers and
ranchers in my district and in the State of California. Many of the
provisions allow our producers to market their products overseas and to
successfully compete against heavily subsidized agricultural producers
from the European Union.
In spite of all of these things that Congress is doing, such as
passing this bill and passing the Agricultural Risk Protection Act to
help the producers of America's food to stay on the farm, many of our
farmers and some co-ops remain in financial trouble.
Our farmers and ranchers cannot stay on the farm unless they make a
profit. Mr. Chairman, I know of the strong commitment of the gentleman
from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) to our agricultural producers. They need to
know that when times are bad, this Congress will do what is necessary
with tools already at hand to assure that they can continue growing the
commodities our Nation wants and needs.
Mr. Chairman, I am seeking the assistance of the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Skeen) to convince the Secretary of Agriculture to use
whatever appropriate means he has at his disposal to relieve this
situation.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) for
his consideration in this matter. I look forward to working with the
gentleman.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Ose) for working so hard on behalf of the agriculture in his district.
The family farmer and ranchers face many difficult challenges, and it
is my belief that the provisions in this bill will help them.
I am committed to working with the gentleman from California (Mr.
Ose) to ensure that the producers in his district have the necessary
support to overcome the financial challenges facing them.
Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield
to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney).
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, this is one of the most challenging
periods of time in the last 10 years for apple growers. Low prices,
labor issues and regulatory actions are posing significant barriers to
success in this important sector for agriculture.
For example, Mr. Chairman, according to USDA, U.S. apple growers have
suffered losses of $760 million over the last 3 years. Also, in the
past several years, apple prices have been at the lowest levels in over
a decade.
These extreme, unprecedented, economic losses are due to a variety of
factors, including the loss of markets, unknown fair competition from
below-market imports from China, and lastly, weather-related disasters
which have reduced yields, as well as quality and prices.
The cumulative losses have resulted in dire financial conditions. Mr.
Chairman, many financial institutions are no longer willing to provide
new loans to apple growers who are now seen as high risks. As a result,
many growers will be forced out of business without aid.
In the last 2 years, Mr. Chairman, Congress has provided $22 billion
in emergency farm relief to address low commodity prices in natural
disasters. An additional $7 billion has recently been advanced as part
of the crop insurance reforms. Despite all of this, apple growers have
received none of the assistance, even though they have suffered losses
just as severely as any other ag sector.
This is why I am so pleased that $115 million has been provided in
the ag appropriations bill to assist apple and potato growers and I
thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) for his good work
and support in this effort.
While this funding is enormously helpful, Mr. Chairman, and long
overdue, there are even greater challenges facing a significant group
of farmers in my district and throughout New York State.
Just last month, massive hailstorms struck the Hudson Valley region
of New York, bringing widespread and extensive crop damage to Columbia,
Dutchess, Orange and Ulster Counties, some of which I viewed firsthand
and it was truly devastating.
Mr. Chairman, allow me to quantify that damage. Apple production
losses are estimated at over 2 million bushels on approximately 7,450
affected acres. As a result, growers intend to completely abandon over
2,100 acres of fruit this season, further resulting in losses such as
$19.8 billion in lost production revenue, $13.1 million in lost farm
worker wages.
Area growers are working closely with local and State farm service
agency offices to document losses. In New York, Governor Pataki has
requested disaster designations from the Secretary of Agriculture for
these counties. We are currently awaiting those designations.
Let me point out, Mr. Chairman, there are problems with disaster
programs at USDA. Although New York apple growers have suffered $41
million in weather-related losses prior to this year, they received
only $1.8 million in Federal crop-loss disaster assistance from USDA.
Area farmers have experienced losses needing at a minimum three
action items taken in order to rectify them. The first being a disaster
designation as soon as possible to make affected growers eligible for
short-term disaster relief aid. Secondly, implementation of reforms to
crop insurance to ensure that fruit growers have cost-effective
insurance coverage for catastrophic losses; and, finally, direct grant
aid to offset the catastrophic losses based on actual crop loses.
I would like to ask the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen)
for the opportunity to work with him and his subcommittee through
conference in ensuring that USDA is devoting the appropriate resources
to the growers in need in New York State.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, as is evident in the
bill now, I will be pleased to work with the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Sweeney) as the bill advances. I thank the gentleman for bringing
this to our attention, and it has been good working with the gentleman.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico. At
this point, these types of issues affect practically all regions and
sectors of agriculture over the course of time. We are also at this
time seeing significant rains negatively affect many sectors of
agriculture in the Northeast.
As we have worked together on other issues affecting New York
agriculture, I look forward to continuing to work with the gentleman on
these issues affecting New York apple growers.
Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. Allen
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 32 offered by Mr. Allen:
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
approve any application for a new drug submitted by an entity
that does not, before completion of the approval process,
provide to the Secretary of Health and Human Services a
written statement specifying the total cost of research and
development with respect to such
[[Page H5774]]
drug, by stage of drug development, including a separate
statement specifying the portion paid with Federal funds and
the portion paid with State funds.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House for Monday, July 10,
2000, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) will be recognized for 5
minutes, and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) will be
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico reserves a point of
order.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) for 5
minutes.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, during the debate on this legislation yesterday, there
was a great deal of bipartisan concern about the high prices that our
seniors pay for their prescription drugs.
In fact, we did pass the Crowley-Coburn amendment which would provide
for those seniors who are healthy enough and able enough to go to
another country to buy their prescription drugs relief for those few.
But it is worth remembering that only 2 weeks ago the majority in this
House passed by three votes a piece of legislation preferred by the
pharmaceutical industry that would rely on private insurance companies
for seniors to get prescription drug coverage.
At the same time, a Democratic alternative that would have provided a
Medicare prescription drug benefit was not allowed even to have a vote
in full debate. Today, I rise to offer an amendment that would give
taxpayers full disclosure of their investment in the research and
development of prescription drugs. In the debate over extending a
prescription drug benefit to Medicare beneficiaries, the pharmaceutical
industry has repeatedly raised concerns that efforts to make drugs
affordable could impact their ability to conduct research and
development of new drugs.
Mr. Chairman, we all support the industry's breakthroughs that have
improved and extended the lives of people with serious illnesses and
chronic disabilities, but the explosion in prescription drugs' prices,
increased utilization, the widespread lack of prescription drug
coverage has left millions of Americans unable to afford the drugs that
their doctors tell them they have to take.
When Medicare was created 35 years ago, there was no provision for
prescription drug insurance, because the pharmaceuticals played a
smaller role in health care and that was not a significant cost. But
today seniors, who represent 12 percent of the population, consume one-
third of all prescription drugs.
The lack of adequate coverage, combined with a high price of
prescription drugs means that seniors are left to make choices that no
American should make. Do they pay the rent or take their high blood
pressure medication? Do they buy groceries this week or fill their
prescription for an osteoporosis drug?
Now, the pharmaceutical industry has been working to stop our efforts
to provide a benefit under Medicare or a discount for seniors who need
a discount, and it is also true they always make the point that they
need these huge profits in order to conduct research and development,
but after they spend in 1999, $24 billion in research and development,
they still had $27.3 billion in profits. These dozen or more companies.
The April issue of Fortune magazine reports that once again, Fortune
pharmaceuticals are the most profitable industry in the country by
every measure; number one in return on revenues, number one in return
on assets, number one in return on shareholder equity.
Now, the historical evidence suggests to us that continued R&D will
increase despite what the industry says. In 1984, when the Waxman-Hatch
Act was passed, the industry predicted that it would lead to cutbacks
in R&D; but, in fact, the pharmaceutical companies more than doubled
their investment in research and development from $4.1 billion to $8.4
billion over the 5 years following the enactment of that legislation.
Finally, I would note that what is going on here is that the
pharmaceutical industry is developing new drugs in partnership with the
public. Though we do not have exact figures, an estimate by the
National Institutes of Health is that taxpayer-funded research,
combined with private foundation-funded research, accounts for almost
50 percent of all the medical research in this country related to
pharmaceuticals.
It is time for the industry to disclose just how much is spent by
private industry and just how much is spent by the taxpayers
essentially in the development of new drugs. We need real figures from
the industry.
Our amendment is simple. We are simply asking for disclosure. We
should not expend any money for the FDA to approve a new drug
application unless the total cost of research and development of the
drug is revealed.
Mr. Chairman, we are particularly interested in knowing how much
taxpayers have contributed to the development of these new drugs.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New Mexico continue to reserve
a point of order?
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve a point of order.
Mr. Chairman, I claim the 5 minutes in opposition, and I yield such
time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Frelinghuysen).
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the chairman, for yielding me the time, and I rise
in opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, all of us here are supportive of providing better
access to prescription drugs to those that need them. Just 2 weeks ago,
we fought all day to provide greater coverage for older Americans.
We all agree that no person, particularly the older people, the
elderly, should ever have to choose between food and medicine. But as
we work to provide greater coverage and access, we do not want to
undermine today's private scientific research and medical innovation
that will continue to find tomorrow's cures, which I believe this
amendment does.
Mr. Chairman, in our collective excitement to do more here, some
today appear to be determined to do just that with a number of
seemingly attractive amendments to this agricultural appropriations
bill. They seek to do so by promoting poorly disguised price controls,
by throwing out Food and Drug Administration protections for consumers,
by suggesting that all imported drugs are safe, reliable and fresh, and
we know they are not; by holding up Canada as a model of health care
delivery and inexpensive medicines, which it is not; by requiring price
disclosures that no other American industry has to comply with; and by
demanding research and development information and denying their
product approvals if not forthcoming and by ignoring the fact that
about 25 cents on the R&D dollar actually results in an approved FDA
product or new medicine.
And they seek to do so, Mr. Chairman, by suggesting that it is only
the National Institutes of Health that does basic research and that the
taxpayers are being ripped off by the pharmaceutical companies. While
the rhetoric fits the times, the facts deserve some weight.
With specific regard to the Allen amendment, I believe we are better
served by promoting research partnerships between government and the
private sector that yield new medicines and cures, not by discouraging
them. This amendment deserves to be soundly defeated.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) has 15 seconds
remaining and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) has 2\3/4\
minutes remaining.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maine
(Mr. Allen) for his good work on this. We need to know what is behind
the $500 million claim from the drug industry. We need to know if
marketing costs are factored in, if executive salaries are factored in,
if administrative costs are factored in. If the drug company wants
American consumers to buy into the premise that outrageous prices are
essential for research and development, they need to show us the
numbers.
[[Page H5775]]
{time} 1330
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico has 2\3/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New Mexico insist on his point
of order?
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen)
withdraw his amendment?
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I understand the point of the point made by
the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), chairman of the committee,
and consequently I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Maine?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
Amendment No. 37 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. 37 offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio:
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
approve any application for a new drug submitted by an entity
that does not agree to publicly disclose, on a quarterly
basis during the patent life of the drug, the average price
charged by the manufacturer for the most common dosage of the
drug (expressed as total revenues divided by total units
sold) in each country that is a member of the Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico reserves a point of
order.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Monday, July 10, 2000, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer this amendment with the gentleman
from Maine (Mr. Allen) and the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and
the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) and the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Jackson) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
This amendment fulfills a simple objective. It helps consumers decide
for themselves whether prescription drug prices are fair. As it stands
now, consumers know what they pay to a pharmacy for a drug, but they do
not know what the manufacturer charges for that drug, what the
manufacturer charges other consumers for it, what the manufacturer
charges other countries for it, what similar drugs cost. My colleagues
get the idea.
This amendment would require manufacturers to disclose to American
consumers the prices they charge here versus what they charge in other
industrialized nations.
The pharmaceutical industries question the accuracy of studies
comparing prescription drug prices in the U.S. to those in other
industrialized countries. They have questioned the accuracy of studies
comparing the price seniors pay to those paid by HMOs. Drug makers
could put these disputes to rest simply by disclosing their prices.
Two weeks ago, I took a dozen seniors from Ohio to a Canadian
pharmacy where they paid one-half, one-third, one-sixth of what it
would have cost to purchase those same drugs in northeast Ohio.
When confronted about price differentials like this, the industry
typically tried to deflect the blame by talking about Canada's
universal health care system. They imply that the only way to achieve
lower prices in this country is to adopt the Canadian health care
system. They imply that Canada pays less for prescription drugs because
Canadians have a government-run health care program, not because of
lower prices.
The drug industry conveniently confuses two different issues. Seniors
in my district bought prescription drugs in Canada and paid lower
prices. They did not step into Canada and suddenly become eligible
under that nation's universal health care system.
Canada negotiates reasonable drug prices. Its 13 provinces also
provide universal health care coverage. That means Canadians receive
assistance towards the purchase of prescription drugs.
American consumers, in spite of what people here say, in spite of the
drug industry, American consumers are smart enough to know the
difference.
Although the drug industry tends to focus on Canada based on what we
can glean from retail pricing studies, Canada is not the only nation
that pays lower prices for drugs. The United States pays the highest
prices in the world for prescription drugs.
This amendment says to the drug industry, if those studies are wrong
or misleading, just show us your prices. Prescription drug companies
may argue that this is proprietary information or raise the issue of
price collusion. Of course, they do provide this information to a
private organization called IMS, and this company makes the information
available to other companies for a price. So drug companies already
know each other's prices, so price information is no secret unless one
is a consumer.
Americans cannot afford to purchase prescription drugs, and they
cannot afford not to.
Under our amendment, consumers would have the power to compare prices
and quality and value to make smart purchases.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I continue my reservation, and I rise to
claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) is recognized
for 5 minutes in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New
Mexico for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment as well. First,
I think Members need to think long and hard about whether or not we
want the Federal Government in the business of keeping the books on
private industry, any private industry. I believe that it is entirely
inappropriate for the Federal Government to have such a role.
Second, looking at the specific language of this amendment, it would
require every company seeking approval for every new medicine to, and I
quote, ``agree to a quarterly disclosure during the patent life of the
drug of the average price charged by the manufacturer in each company
that is a member of the OECD, which is the Organization for Economic
Cooperation Development.''
What does this exactly mean? Many of these OECD countries have price
controls, and just about all of them do. Are we asking the sponsors,
asking the companies to provide us with a list of other countries'
price controls?
As we know, even in these countries, largely Europe and in the United
States and Canada, and specifically in countries with price controls
which we do not have, there is no single price for medicines. Whether
here at home or abroad, prices vary everywhere. That happens to be the
marketplace at work.
All of us here, as I said a few minutes ago, are supportive of
providing better access to prescription drugs to those who need them.
Price controls are not the answer. Canada certainly does not have all
the answers. But as we work to provide greater coverage and access, we
do not want to undermine today's American private scientific research
and medical innovation that will continue to find tomorrow's cures for
the ills of the world and within our own country.
This type of amendment will do just that. Like its predecessor, it
needs to be soundly defeated.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman
from Maine (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding
me this time.
Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment, and it would require
prescription drug companies to disclose the prices they charge here in
the United States and in other countries.
[[Page H5776]]
We know from studies in my district and elsewhere that Mainers, for
example, pay 72 percent more than Canadians and 102 percent more than
Mexicans for the same drugs and the same quantities from the same
manufacturers.
We have the most profitable industry in the country charging the
highest prices in the world to people who can least afford it. In a
free enterprise system, we ought to get some more information about
what those prices are.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, what we are talking about is one of the great health
care crises facing this country, and that is that millions of Americans
cannot afford the outrageously high cost of prescription drugs in this
country.
They know that an absurd situation exists by which, when an American
spends $1 for a prescription drug manufactured in the United States, a
German spends 71 cents, somebody in Sweden spends 68 cents, the United
Kingdom spends 65 cents, and in Italy 51 cents for the same exact drug.
So what this amendment says very simply is we want to know the price
that the pharmaceutical industry is selling that product abroad for. We
want to know, in fact, how come a Canadian pharmacist can buy
Tamoxifen, a widely prescribed breast cancer drug, for one-tenth the
price that an American pharmacist can buy that same product. Meanwhile
we know that the pharmaceutical industry makes a profit in Canada,
selling the product at one-tenth the price that our people have to pay
for it.
All over this country today, elderly people and many other people are
making terrible decisions about whether they can afford the
prescription drugs they need to ease their pain and to keep them alive.
The more knowledge that we have about the pricing situation in the
pharmaceutical industry, the better we will be in being able to address
this crisis.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) insist
on his point of order?
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown)
withdraw his amendment?
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw
my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
Amendment No. 48 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. 48 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 pay the salaries and expenses of personnel who make
payments to producers of wool and mohair under section 204(d)
of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Monday, July 10,
2000, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would say just prefacing my remarks that I have the
utmost respect for the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) and
the way he has consistently watched out for the interest of farmers and
ranchers across the West. For that matter, I would say that I have got
the utmost respect for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and how
he watches out for the ranchers in his district, and the same of the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), who is not here right now but I
suspect who will be walking down toward the floor.
That having been said, I think what needs to be remembered is, in as
good of a job as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) will do in
watching out for ranchers in his district, the larger question always
needs to be is, that may be good and he is doing the right job of a
Congressman in protecting folk in his district, but is it the best in
terms of national policy?
When I look at wool and mohair subsidies over a long and fairly
tortured past, I think the answer has to be no. In fact, if anything, I
see this as more of a horror show, those horror shows where Freddie
hops up out of the coffin with the chainsaw running; one thought he was
dead, one thought he was in the coffin to stay, but he is back up and
at it. That is how these wool and mohair subsidies have gone basically
over 50 years.
Because what is interesting is to look back, it was in World War II
that the United States military recognized that they needed wool and
mohair as basically a strategic material in the building of uniforms to
keep troops warm and dry.
So in 1954 Congress responded to that, and they passed the National
Wool Act. Yet by the 1960s, the Pentagon had moved on to synthetic
fibers. So here we are 46 years after the passage of the act, basically
50 years after the time that Congress moved, the Pentagon moved on to
something else, still helping to subsidize an industry that was no
longer strategic in nature. In fact, some of the years, as one goes
forward in time, wool and mohair would get as much as $200 million
indirect subsidy.
Now, in 1993, that all came to an end. It was interesting, Al Gore's
report, this is Vice President Gore's National Performance Review,
1993, said that the top 1 percent of sheep raisers capture a core of
the money, nearly $100,000 each. The national interest does not require
this program. It provides an unnecessary subsidy for the wealthy.
It was stopped in 1993 to be phased out in 1995, and yet it is back.
Freddie has climbed outside of that coffin, he has got the chainsaw
running, and we are looking at basically $10 million or $11 million in
subsidy back to wool and mohair.
The question that I think that needs to be asked is, is this in the
best interest of the overall taxpayer? I think no, one, because of what
was pointed out in Gore's review; two, what would be pointed out in
programs like the fact that Sam Donaldson, not exactly a New Mexico
sheep farmer, had gotten $97,000 in direct wool payments a couple years
back, in fact back just prior to 1995 in the phase-out of law.
The more than important question, though, because that part has
ended, is what we are talking about here are the acts of the market
versus the acts of God. If the local pizzeria goes out of business or
the local hardware store goes out of business or the local video store
goes out of business as a result of acts of the market, we do not
subsidize that pizzeria. Should we do any differently with this wool
and mohair?
The third point that I would make would be we are talking about a
program. If we do not keep this out, it will become more permanent in
nature.
It is interesting to me, this is in the June 24, 2000, issue of
National Journal, Jewel Richardson, the first vice president of the
Texas Sheep and Goat Raisers Association, hopes to put in a permanent
program, their own words according to National Journal.
So I think we have got something that, a, could become a permanent
program and is not a temporary help in time of need; and, b, is
something that costs the taxpayers a whole lot of money to the benefit
of a very few congressional districts.
Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) has 30
seconds remaining.
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr.
Skeen) for 5 minutes.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
{time} 1345
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I
understand where my friend is coming from, but he keeps talking about
the Wool and Mohair Act. That is gone. The Congress took it away, voted
it out, in 1994.
[[Page H5777]]
Now, the money in question in the supplemental is a little bit
different question, because from 1995 to 1998, domestic mohair
production has declined 60 percent in the United States from 12 million
pounds down to 5. In the wool area, the lamb industry, the market
depression has driven over 25,000 sheep producers out of business in
the 1990s. Now, the gentleman might say this is fine. If this is the
market doing this and making this happen, this is in the spirit of
voting out the wool and mohair program. But that is not what the facts
bear out.
When we look at the European Union this year, I say to the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), the European Union will spend $2
billion subsidizing their wool producers. Subsidizing their wool
producers. The answer of the gentleman from South Carolina is to take
away the help that was put into the supplemental from our industry that
is struggling to survive in the international marketplace.
What we are trying to do is get some support from the Congress, and
there was some support given, in recognition that the wool and mohair
industry is now in fact trying to pull themselves back up by their
bootstraps and compete. And it seems to me that an amendment that
strikes $11 million out of a $7.1 billion total appropriation for
recognizing the depressed prices that are occurring in all of
agriculture is a little bit mean spirited, and it is not certainly up
to the character of my friend from South Carolina.
The gentleman's amendment, and I say to my colleagues, the Sanford
amendment is misguided. It is based on some old historical facts that
are no longer prevalent. The Sanford amendment sends a signal to
domestic producers that their government does not stand behind them in
the face of unfair trade.
I would also point out to my colleagues that the industry has won a
section 201. The International Trade Commission has found in favor of
the domestic industry; that they have been experiencing unfair trade
practices by other countries and, therefore, were entitled to $100
million in compensation as a result of what the ITC has found.
It seems to me that this amendment should be defeated today. It is
well-intentioned but very misguided. These two industries are doing
everything they can to pull themselves up by their bootstraps to
survive in this marketplace. They need a little assistance from the
Congress to do it.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The President just recently signed into law legislation that
reauthorizes the issuance of wool and mohair payments. Rural America
and American farmers are facing an economic crisis, and disaster
assistance has been provided to almost every segment of agriculture in
the last few years. I believe it is unfair to single out wool and
mohair producers and to prohibit them from receiving financial
assistance.
I urge my colleagues to defeat the gentleman's amendment as it is
punitive and targets a small industry facing extraordinarily difficult
times.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would just put this on the scorecard of two wrongs do
not make a right. EU absolutely does subsidize its wool and mohair
producers. But when we look at New Zealand and Australia, we do not see
that being the case. I think we should look more at the New Zealand and
the Australian model than the EU example.
Secondly, we are talking about a small industry here, but nobody goes
out to help and subsidize the local pizzeria when they go out of
business, the local video store, or the local hardware store. And I
think we should be moving toward free markets. Because if we really
want to reinvigorate this society of ours, I think it rests on free
markets and the competitive forces that should take place.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla).
(Mr. BONILLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
gentleman's amendment.
I am so grateful for the strong bipartisan support that we have had
for this provision in this bill for some time now. The gentleman from
New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), and the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) should be thanked for recognizing
the tremendous need out there for wool and mohair producers.
For anyone to try to draw a parallel between difficulties faced with
small businesses in this country, like pizzerias and bakeries, for
goodness sakes, is ridiculous. Foreign nations do not subsidize their
own pizzerias, their hardware stores, and their auto parts stores. We
are talking about foreign nations that unfairly subsidize their areas
in agriculture. This is an area where wool and mohair producers have
been subsidized to a great unfair advantage. As the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm) pointed out, that gives competitors a tremendous
advantage over a lot of our producers in this country who are suffering
tremendously.
Falling commodity prices over the years and other factors, drought
and so forth, have affected agriculture across the board in this
country. This bill that makes up the whole of this aid covers peanut
farmers and tobacco farmers. There are more AMTA payments in this bill.
Why for goodness sake are we singling out one small portion of this
bill in agriculture that has suffered equally as other areas in
agriculture have other the last few years?
I cannot figure out why this amendment is singling out one small
group of all of American agriculture to try to pick on them and leave
them out in the cold. If my colleague could only see the hardships that
many of them have faced throughout the last several years, I think he
would change his mind.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment and urge
my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
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. 68 Offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 68 offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana:
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 expended for a vaccine-related Federal advisory committee
(Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee)
that grants a waiver on applicable conflicts of interest
rules pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act and
sections 202 through 209 of title 18, United States Code, and
regulations issued thereunder.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Monday, July 10,
2000, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) for 5
minutes.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the health of every American child is affected by
decisions made at the Department of Health and Human Services about
vaccines. Those decisions have to be made free of conflicts of
interest, and right now that just is not the case.
Health and Human Services relies on two advisory committees to give
scientific advice on vaccine policy. Unfortunately, those advisory
committees are dominated by the pharmaceutical industry. HHS routinely
gives doctors with serious conflicts of interest waivers to vote on
vaccine policies.
My amendment stands for a simple proposition. We should be getting
the
[[Page H5778]]
best scientific advice possible and it should not be tainted by
possible conflicts of interest. We are going to hear from the other
side that if my amendment passes they will not be able to find anyone
to serve on these committees. That is just not so.
The Committee on Government Reform has done an extensive
investigation into these advisory committees. We took a close look at
their votes to approve the rotavirus vaccine. That vote has had
disastrous results. Children developed serious bowel obstructions. They
needed emergency surgery. And one child died. The vaccine had to be
pulled from the market 3 months after the official recommendation.
Did this problem come up out of the blue? No. There was evidence of
this problem in the clinical trials. This and other problems were
discussed during the advisory committee meetings. Several Members had
concerns. One doctor had serious reservations and expressed them. Yet
every doctor on the committee voted to recommend approval of the
vaccine. Why? Well, three out of the five FDA advisory committee
members had financial ties to the drug companies that were developing
the rotavirus vaccine.
One of those doctors received $255,000 a year from the maker of the
vaccine, Wyeth Lederle. Another worked at a university that received
$75,000 from Lederle's parent company. Yet they got waivers so they
could vote on the vaccine.
The CDC routinely grants waivers from conflict of interest to every
member of the advisory committee. The chairman of the CDC's advisory
committee owned 600 shares of stock in a drug company that is
developing a competing rotavirus vaccine.
Now, I am not saying these doctors are corrupt or had any malicious
intent. What I am saying is that when someone gets money from a
company, especially large sums of money, it affects that individual's
judgment. And I am not alone in my concern about conflicts of interest.
Last year, the New England Journal of Medicine had a scandal on their
hands. They found that 18 doctors who wrote articles about drugs for
their Journal had financial ties to the companies that made the drugs.
The Journal was seriously concerned and wrote an editorial about it,
and here is what they had to say. ``What is at issue is not whether
researchers can be bought in the sense of a quid pro quo, it is that
close and remunerative collaboration with a company naturally creates
goodwill on the part of researchers and the hope that the largess will
continue. This attitude can subtly influence scientific judgment.''
They were right. Conflicts of interest are a problem and we need to
do something about it. My amendment would prohibit HHS from granting
waivers to members of vaccine-related committees who have serious
conflicts of interest. If the New England Journal of Medicine can do
it, HHS can do it, and there should not be anything controversial about
saying we want the best advice possible without conflicts of interest.
Our children's health and well-being depend on fair and impartial
judgment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) rise in
opposition?
Mr. SKEEN. I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I think the Burton amendment is a well-meaning amendment that will do
little to help ethics, but it will do irreparable harm to vaccine
development. The amendment blows up a carefully balanced process
proposed in 1989 by President Bush which allows narrow and necessary
conflict of interest waivers to enhance the government's ability to
support the development of crucial vaccines.
The amendment is opposed by the Office of Government Ethics itself,
and that agency says, ``The government would be depriving itself of
much of the best and most relevant outside expertise in many areas. The
amendment would prohibit waivers for financial interests that are so
insubstantial, remote, or inconsequential that they are typically
permitted even for regular full-time government employees.'' They go on
to say, ``Existing law strikes the correct balance between protecting
the government from inappropriate conflicts of interest and recognizing
the need for temporary experts who may have unavoidable conflicts in
relevant fields of inquiry.''
In short, even the agency that enforces government ethics says this
is a bad idea. It may be well meaning, but it certainly, in the way it
would be implemented, would wreck our vaccine development program.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time to close
debate.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) controls 1\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I understand the concerns of those who
are saying, well, there are just no experts around who could then be
able to safely review these vaccines. However, the conflict of interest
issue cannot go away that easily.
I am concerned as to how we protect the integrity of scientific
review and the integrity of the vaccine approval process if we do not
make sure that there is an attempt to separate the interests of the
vaccine makers from those who are doing the oversight.
This is a quandary, but I think that the amendment at least creates
the opportunity to debate this issue, to bring it out in the open, and
to ask Members of Congress to reflect as to the condition that we have
here, which is that there are patent conflicts of interest here. And in
that sense, I support this amendment.
{time} 1400
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Let me just say that we have held numerous hearings on this issue. We
have found through the hearings that many of the people on these
advisory committees have financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry.
They have financial ties directly to the companies that are producing
the drugs that they are voting on, the vaccinations they are voting on.
We have just expressed clearly that children who took the rotavirus
vaccine after there had been reservations about it, one died, and
several hundred got sick and had to go to the emergency room. There
were conflicts of interest. That needs to be eliminated.
There are a lot of doctors and scientists we could get who did not
have those conflicts of interest, those ties to the pharmaceutical
industry, that could give an impartial judgment. That is what we need
to do to protect the health of these children.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in opposition to the amendment. Let me explain what this
extreme restriction on the Food and Drug Administration would do. The
amendment would not allow funding for an advisory committee that grants
conflict of interest waivers. The effect would be that the top experts
in the field of vaccine research would not be able to advise the
Federal Government about vaccines and biological products.
The conflict of interest waivers exist so that the top experts, the
ones you would want to consult if your family member were ill, can
advise government agencies. These top scientists are few in number and
very specialized. Most of them have worked in research sponsored by
industry at some point in their careers. Congress devised the waiver
system so that such experts could serve the Government when the need
for their services outweighed the potential of conflict of interest due
to financial ties to industry.
Since the field of biological vaccine research is specialized and
unique, the conflict of interest waivers are necessary. The granting of
a waiver is not pro forma but a measured decision by an impartial
party. In some cases, waivers are granted only for participation in the
advisory group discussion, and the individual is not permitted to vote
on the advisory committee recommendation.
I would also like to draw your attention to the term ``advisory.''
Advisory
[[Page H5779]]
committees make recommendations to FDA but do not vote on product
approvals. Product approval decisions are made by federally employed
scientists.
I would ask my colleagues not to cripple the vaccine advisory
committee system by making it impossible to recruit the appropriate
level of scientific expertise. Please vote ``no'' on this amendment.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SKEEN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Is the gentleman aware that these advisory
committee members testified before our committee and very clearly had
conflicts of interest and yet they still voted on this? If we grant
waivers to those people, we are going to continue the process which
endangers kids in this country.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SKEEN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to point out
the existing law was proposed by President Bush and was enacted with
broad bipartisan support. We have got to have the people who have the
knowledge and expertise to be on these advisory committees. If the
Burton amendment is agreed to, those people will not be serving, and
that will be a disservice to the children of this country that want to
be sure, for parents, that the vaccines have been reviewed by those who
can give us the best information. The conflicts of interest that the
gentleman from Indiana referred to, and I sat through those hearings as
well, were quite remote, had nothing to do with the vaccine approval.
In some cases they involved people who because of their knowledge and
expertise in this area had worked for pharmaceutical companies because
they were the best experts in the country to advise on these vaccines.
I would hope that Members will oppose the Burton amendment and not
disregard a law that is so important for the best experts in virology,
biology, statistics, pediatrics, and other scientific disciplines to
serve as volunteers in the public interest.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SKEEN. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would simply
emphasize again the Office of Government Ethics itself opposes this
amendment, saying that the Government would be deprived of much of the
best and most relevant outside expertise in many areas.
This amendment is well meaning, but its principal victim if it passes
will be children who will get sick and die because of the lack of
adequate vaccines.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. 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 Indiana (Mr. Burton)
will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Kucinich
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Kucinich:
Page 96, after line 7, insert the following new title:
TITLE IX--GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD RIGHT TO KNOW ACT
SEC. 901. SHORT TITLE.
(a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the
``Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act''.
SEC. 902. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds as follows:
(1) The process of genetically engineering foods results in
the material change of such foods.
(2) The Congress has previously required that all foods
bear labels that reveal material facts to consumers.
(3) Federal agencies have failed to uphold Congressional
intent by allowing genetically engineered foods to be
marketed, sold and otherwise used without labeling that
reveals material facts to the public.
(4) Consumers wish to know whether the food they purchase
and consume contains or is produced with a genetically
engineered material for a variety of reasons, including the
potential transfer of allergens into food and other health
risks, concerns about potential environmental risks
associated with the genetic engineering of crops, and
religiously and ethically based dietary restrictions.
(5) Consumers have a right to know whether the food they
purchase contains or was produced with genetically engineered
material.
(6) Reasonably available technology permits the detection
in food of genetically engineered material, generally
acknowledged to be as low as 0.1 percent.
SEC. 903. LABELING REGARDING GENETICALLY ENGINEERED MATERIAL;
AMENDMENTS TO FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC
ACT.
(a) In General.--Section 403 of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 343) is amended by adding at the end
the following paragraph:
``(t)(1) If it contains a genetically engineered material,
or was produced with a genetically engineered material,
unless it bears a label (or labeling, in the case of a raw
agricultural commodity, other than the sale of such a
commodity at retail) that provides notices in accordance with
the following:
``(A) A notice as follows: `GENETICALLY ENGINEERED'.
``(B) A notice as follows: `UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
NOTICE: THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS A GENETICALLY ENGINEERED
MATERIAL, OR WAS PRODUCED WITH A GENETICALLY ENGINEERED
MATERIAL'.
``(C) The notice required in clause (A) immediately
precedes the notice required in clause (B) and is not less
than twice the size of the notice required in clause (B).
``(D) The notice required in clause (B) is of the same size
as would apply if the notice provided nutrition information
that is required in paragraph (q)(1).
``(E) The notices required in clauses (A) and (B) are
clearly legible and conspicuous.
``(2) For purposes of subparagraph (1):
``(A) The term `genetically engineered material' means
material derived from any part of a genetically engineered
organism, without regard to whether the altered molecular or
cellular characteristics of the organism are detectable in
the material.
``(B) The term `genetically engineered organism' means--
``(i) an organism that has been altered at the molecular or
cellular level by means that are not possible under natural
conditions or processes (including but not limited to
recombinant DNA and RNA techniques, cell fusion,
microencapsulation, macro-encapsulation, gene deletion and
doubling, introducing a foreign gene, and changing the
positions of genes), other than a means consisting
exclusively of breeding, conjugation, fermentation,
hybridization, in vitro fertilization, or tissue culture, and
``(ii) an organism made through sexual or asexual
reproduction (or both) involving an organism described in
subclause (i), if possessing any of the altered molecular or
cellular characteristics of the organism so described.
``(3) For purposes of subparagraph (1), a food shall be
considered to have been produced with a genetically
engineered material if--
``(A) the organism from which the food is derived has been
injected or otherwise treated with a genetically engineered
material (except that the use of manure as a fertilizer for
raw agricultural commodities may not be construed to mean
that such commodities are produced with a genetically
engineered material);
``(B) the animal from which the food is derived has been
fed genetically engineered material, or
``(C) the food contains an ingredient that is a food to
which clause (A) or (B) applies.
``(4) This paragraph does not apply to food that--
``(A) is served in restaurants or other establishments in
which food is served for immediate human consumption,
``(B) is processed and prepared primarily in a retail
establishment, is ready for human consumption, which is of
the type described in clause (A), and is offered for sale to
consumers but not for immediate human consumption in such
establishment and is not offered for sale outside such
establishment, or
``(C) is a medical food as defined in section 5(b) of the
Orphan Drug Act.''.
(b) Civil Penalties.--Section 303 of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 333) is amended by adding
at the end the following subsection:
``(h)(1) With respect to a violation of section 301(a),
301(b), or 301(c) involving the misbranding of food within
the meaning of section 403(t), any person engaging in such a
violation shall be liable to the United States for a civil
penalty in an amount not to exceed $100,000 for each such
violation.
``(2) Paragraphs (3) through (5) of subsection (g) apply
with respect to a civil penalty under paragraph (1) of this
subsection to the same extent and in the same manner as such
paragraphs (3) through (5) apply with respect to a civil
penalty under paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (g).''.
(c) Guaranty.--
(1) In general.--Section 303(d) of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 333(d)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``(d)'' and inserting ``(d)(1)''; and
[[Page H5780]]
(B) by adding at the end the following paragraph:
``(2)(A) No person shall be subject to the penalties of
subsection (a)(1) or (h) for a violation of section 301(a),
301(b), or 301(c) involving the misbranding of food within
the meaning of section 403(t) if such person (referred to in
this paragraph as the `recipient') establishes a guaranty or
undertaking signed by, and containing the name and address
of, the person residing in the United States from whom the
recipient received in good faith the food (including the
receipt of seeds to grow raw agricultural commodities), to
the effect that (within the meaning of section 403(t)) the
food does not contain a genetically engineered material or
was not produced with a genetically engineered material.
``(B) In the case of a recipient who with respect to a food
establishes a guaranty or undertaking in accordance with
subparagraph (A), the exclusion under such subparagraph from
being subject to penalties applies to the recipient without
regard to the use of the food by the recipient, including--
``(i) processing the food,
``(ii) using the food as an ingredient in a food product,
``(iii) repacking the food, or
``(iv) growing, raising, or otherwise producing the
food.''.
(2) False guaranty.--Section 301(h) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 331(h)) is amended by
inserting ``or 303(d)(2)'' after ``303(c)(2)''.
(d) Unintended Contamination.--Section 303(d) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by
subsection (c)(1) of this section, is amended by adding at
the end the following paragraph:
``(3)(A) No person shall be subject to the penalties of
subsection (a)(1) or (h) for a violation of section 301(a),
301(b), or 301(c) involving the misbranding of food within
the meaning of section 403(t) if--
``(i) such person is an agricultural producer and the
violation occurs because food that is grown, raised, or
otherwise produced by such producer, which food does not
contain a genetically engineered material and was not
produced with a genetically engineered material, is
contaminated with a food that contains a genetically
engineered material or was produced with a genetically
engineered material (including contamination by mingling the
two), and
``(ii) such contamination is not intended by the
agricultural producer.
``(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to an agricultural
producer to the extent that the contamination occurs as a
result of the negligence of the producer.''.
SEC. 904. LABELING REGARDING GENETICALLY ENGINEERED MATERIAL;
AMENDMENTS TO FEDERAL MEAT INSPECTION ACT.
(a) Requirements.--The Federal Meat Inspection Act is
amended by inserting after section 7 (21 U.S.C. 607) the
following section:
``SEC. 7A. REQUIREMENTS FOR LABELING REGARDING GENETICALLY
ENGINEERED MATERIAL.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) The term `meat food' means a carcass, part of a
carcass, meat, or meat food product that is derived from
cattle, sheep, swine, goats, horses, mules, or other equines
and is capable of use as human food.
``(2) The term `genetically engineered material' means
material derived from any part of a genetically engineered
organism, without regard to whether the altered molecular or
cellular characteristics of the organism are detectable in
the material (and without regard to whether the organism is
capable of use as human food).
``(3) The term `genetically engineered organism' means--
``(A) an organism that has been altered at the molecular or
cellular level by means that are not possible under natural
conditions or processes (including but not limited to
recombinant DNA and RNA techniques, cell fusion,
microencapsulation, macro-encapsulation, gene deletion and
doubling, introducing a foreign gene, and changing the
positions of genes), other than a means consisting
exclusively of breeding, conjugation, fermentation,
hybridization, in vitro fertilization, or tissue culture; and
``(B) an organism made through sexual or asexual
reproduction (or both) involving an organism described in
subparagraph (A), if possessing any of the altered molecular
or cellular characteristics of the organism so described.
``(b) Labeling Requirement.--
``(1) Required labeling to avoid misbranding.--For purposes
of sections 1(n) and 10, a meat food is misbranded if it--
``(A) contains a genetically engineered material or was
produced with a genetically engineered material; and
``(B) does not bear a label (or include labeling, in the
case of a meat food that is not packaged in a container) that
provides, in a clearly legible and conspicuous manner, the
notices described in subsection (c).
``(2) Rule of construction.--For purposes of paragraph
(1)(A), a meat food shall be considered to have been produced
with a genetically engineered material if--
``(A) the organism from which the food is derived has been
injected or otherwise treated with a genetically engineered
material;
``(B) the animal from which the food is derived has been
fed genetically engineered material; or
``(C) the food contains an ingredient that is a food to
which subparagraph (A) or (B) applies.
``(c) Specifics of Label Notices.--
``(1) Required notices.--The notices referred to in
subsection (b)(1)(B) are the following:
``(A) A notice as follows: `GENETICALLY ENGINEERED'.
``(B) A notice as follows: `UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
NOTICE: THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS A GENETICALLY ENGINEERED
MATERIAL, OR WAS PRODUCED WITH A GENETICALLY ENGINEERED
MATERIAL'.
``(2) Location and size.--(A) The notice required in
paragraph (1)(A) shall immediately precede the notice
required in paragraph (1)(B) and shall be not less than twice
the size of the notice required in paragraph (1)(B).
``(B) The notice required in paragraph (1)(B) shall be of
the same size as would apply if the notice provided nutrition
information that is required in section 403(q)(1) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
``(d) Exceptions to Requirements.--Subsection (a) does not
apply to any meat food that--
``(1) is served in restaurants or other establishments in
which food is served for immediate human consumption; or
``(2) is processed and prepared primarily in a retail
establishment, is ready for human consumption, is offered for
sale to consumers but not for immediate human consumption in
such establishment, and is not offered for sale outside such
establishment.
``(e) Guaranty.--
``(1) In general.--A packer, processor, or other person
shall not be considered to have violated the requirements of
this section with respect to the labeling of meat food if the
packer, processor, or other person (referred to in this
subsection as the `recipient') establishes a guaranty or
undertaking signed by, and containing the name and address
of, the person residing in the United States from whom the
recipient received in good faith the meat food or the animal
from which the meat food was derived, or received in good
faith food intended to be fed to such animal, to the effect
that the meat food, or such animal, or such food,
respectively, does not contain genetically engineered
material or was not produced with a genetically engineered
material.
``(2) Scope of guaranty.--In the case of a recipient who
establishes a guaranty or undertaking in accordance with
paragraph (1), the exclusion under such paragraph from being
subject to penalties applies to the recipient without regard
to the use of the meat food by the recipient (or the use by
the recipient of the animal from which the meat food was
derived, or of food intended to be fed to such animal),
including--
``(A) processing the meat food;
``(B) using the meat food as an ingredient in another food
product;
``(C) packing or repacking the meat food; or
``(D) raising the animal from which the meat food was
derived.
``(3) False guaranty.--It is a violation of this Act for a
person to give a guaranty or undertaking in accordance with
paragraph (1) that the person knows or has reason to know is
false.
``(f) Civil Penalties.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may assess a civil penalty
against a person that violates subsection (b) or (c)(3) in an
amount not to exceed $100,000 for each such violation.
``(2) Notice and opportunity for hearing.--A civil penalty
under paragraph (1) shall be assessed by the Secretary by an
order made on the record after opportunity for a hearing
provided in accordance with this subparagraph and section 554
of title 5, United States Code. Before issuing such an order,
the Secretary shall give written notice to the person to be
assessed a civil penalty under such order of the Secretary's
proposal to issue such order and provide such person an
opportunity for a hearing on the order. In the course of any
investigation, the Secretary may issue subpoenas requiring
the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production
of evidence that relates to the matter under investigation.
``(3) Considerations regarding amount of penalty.--In
determining the amount of a civil penalty under paragraph
(1), the Secretary shall take into account the nature,
circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation or
violations and, with respect to the violator, ability to pay,
effect on ability to continue to do business, any history of
prior such violations, the degree of culpability, and such
other matters as justice may require.
``(4) Certain authorities.--The Secretary may compromise,
modify, or remit, with or without conditions, any civil
penalty under paragraph (1). The amount of such penalty, when
finally determined, or the amount agreed upon in compromise,
may be deducted from any sums owing by the United States to
the person charged.
``(5) Judicial review.--Any person who requested, in
accordance with paragraph (2), a hearing respecting the
assessment of a civil penalty under paragraph (1) and who is
aggrieved by an order assessing a civil penalty may file a
petition for judicial review of such order with the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
or for any other circuit in which such person resides or
transacts business. Such a petition may only be filed within
the 60-day period beginning on the date the order making such
assessment was issued.
``(6) Failure to pay.--If a person fails to pay an
assessment of a civil penalty--
[[Page H5781]]
``(A) after the order making the assessment becomes final,
and if such person does not file a petition for judicial
review of the order in accordance with paragraph (5); or
``(B) after a court in an action brought under paragraph
(4) has entered a final judgment in favor of the Secretary;
the Attorney General shall recover the amount assessed (plus
interest at currently prevailing rates from the date of the
expiration of the 60-day period referred to in paragraph (5)
or the date of such final judgment, as the case may be) in an
action brought in any appropriate district court of the
United States. In such an action, the validity, amount, and
appropriateness of such penalty shall not be subject to
review.''.
(b) Inclusion of Labeling Requirements in Definition of
Misbranded.--Section 1(n) of the Federal Meat Inspection Act
(21 U.S.C. 601(n)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (11);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (12) and
inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following paragraph:
``(13) if it fails to bear a label or labeling as required
by section 7A.''.
SEC. 905. LABELING REGARDING GENETICALLY ENGINEERED MATERIAL;
AMENDMENTS TO POULTRY PRODUCTS INSPECTION ACT.
The Poultry Products Inspection Act is amended by inserting
after section 8 (21 U.S.C. 457) the following section:
``SEC. 8A. REQUIREMENTS FOR LABELING REGARDING GENETICALLY
ENGINEERED MATERIAL.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) The term `genetically engineered material' means
material derived from any part of a genetically engineered
organism, without regard to whether the altered molecular or
cellular characteristics of the organism are detectable in
the material (and without regard to whether the organism is
capable of use as human food).
``(2) The term `genetically engineered organism' means--
``(A) an organism that has been altered at the molecular or
cellular level by means that are not possible under natural
conditions or processes (including but not limited to
recombinant DNA and RNA techniques, cell fusion,
microencapsulation, macro-encapsulation, gene deletion and
doubling, introducing a foreign gene, and changing the
positions of genes), other than a means consisting
exclusively of breeding, conjugation, fermentation,
hybridization, in vitro fertilization, or tissue culture; and
``(B) an organism made through sexual or asexual
reproduction (or both) involving an organism described in
subparagraph (A), if possessing any of the altered molecular
or cellular characteristics of the organism so described.
``(b) Labeling Requirement.--
``(1) Required labeling to avoid misbranding.--For purposes
of sections 4(h) and 9(a), a poultry product is misbranded if
it--
``(A) contains a genetically engineered material or was
produced with a genetically engineered material; and
``(B) does not bear a label (or include labeling, in the
case of a poultry product that is not packaged in a
container) that provides, in a clearly legible and
conspicuous manner, the notices described in subsection (c).
``(2) Rule of construction.--For purposes of paragraph
(1)(A), a poultry product shall be considered to have been
produced with a genetically engineered material if--
``(A) the poultry from which the food is derived has been
injected or otherwise treated with a genetically engineered
material;
``(B) the poultry from which the food is derived has been
fed genetically engineered material; or
``(C) the food contains an ingredient that is a food to
which subparagraph (A) or (B) applies.
``(c) Specifics of Label Notices.--
``(1) Required notices.--The notices referred to in
subsection (b)(1)(B) are the following:
``(A) A notice as follows: `GENETICALLY ENGINEERED'.
``(B) A notice as follows: `UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
NOTICE: THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS A GENETICALLY ENGINEERED
MATERIAL, OR WAS PRODUCED WITH A GENETICALLY ENGINEERED
MATERIAL'.
``(2) Location and size.--(A) The notice required in
paragraph (1)(A) shall immediately precede the notice
required in paragraph (1)(B) and shall be not less than twice
the size of the notice required in paragraph (1)(B).
``(B) The notice required in paragraph (1)(B) shall be of
the same size as would apply if the notice provided nutrition
information that is required in section 403(q)(1) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
``(d) Exceptions to Requirements.--Subsection (a) does not
apply to any poultry product that--
``(1) is served in restaurants or other establishments in
which food is served for immediate human consumption; or
``(2) is processed and prepared primarily in a retail
establishment, is ready for human consumption, is offered for
sale to consumers but not for immediate human consumption in
such establishment, and is not offered for sale outside such
establishment.
``(e) Guaranty.--
``(1) In general.--An official establishment or other
person shall not be considered to have violated the
requirements of this section with respect to the labeling of
a poultry product if the official establishment or other
person (referred to in this subsection as the `recipient')
establishes a guaranty or undertaking signed by, and
containing the name and address of, the person residing in
the United States from whom the recipient received in good
faith the poultry product or the poultry from which the
poultry product was derived, or received in good faith food
intended to be fed to poultry, to the effect that the poultry
product, poultry, or such food, respectively, does not
contain genetically engineered material or was not produced
with a genetically engineered material.
``(2) Scope of guaranty.--In the case of a recipient who
establishes a guaranty or undertaking in accordance with
paragraph (1), the exclusion under such paragraph from being
subject to penalties applies to the recipient without regard
to the use of the poultry product by the recipient (or the
use by the recipient of the poultry from which the poultry
product was derived, or of food intended to be fed to such
poultry), including--
``(A) processing the poultry;
``(B) using the poultry product as an ingredient in another
food product;
``(C) packing or repacking the poultry product; or
``(D) raising the poultry from which the poultry product
was derived.
``(3) False guaranty.--It is a violation of this Act for a
person to give a guaranty or undertaking in accordance with
paragraph (1) that the person knows or has reason to know is
false.
``(f) Civil Penalties.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may assess a civil penalty
against a person that violates subsection (b) or (c)(3) in an
amount not to exceed $100,000 for each such violation.
``(2) Notice and opportunity for hearing.--A civil penalty
under paragraph (1) shall be assessed by the Secretary by an
order made on the record after opportunity for a hearing
provided in accordance with this subparagraph and section 554
of title 5, United States Code. Before issuing such an order,
the Secretary shall give written notice to the person to be
assessed a civil penalty under such order of the Secretary's
proposal to issue such order and provide such person an
opportunity for a hearing on the order. In the course of any
investigation, the Secretary may issue subpoenas requiring
the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production
of evidence that relates to the matter under investigation.
``(3) Considerations regarding amount of penalty.--In
determining the amount of a civil penalty under paragraph
(1), the Secretary shall take into account the nature,
circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation or
violations and, with respect to the violator, ability to pay,
effect on ability to continue to do business, any history of
prior such violations, the degree of culpability, and such
other matters as justice may require.
``(4) Certain authorities.--The Secretary may compromise,
modify, or remit, with or without conditions, any civil
penalty under paragraph (1). The amount of such penalty, when
finally determined, or the amount agreed upon in compromise,
may be deducted from any sums owing by the United States to
the person charged.
``(5) Judicial review.--Any person who requested, in
accordance with paragraph (2), a hearing respecting the
assessment of a civil penalty under paragraph (1) and who is
aggrieved by an order assessing a civil penalty may file a
petition for judicial review of such order with the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
or for any other circuit in which such person resides or
transacts business. Such a petition may only be filed within
the 60-day period beginning on the date the order making such
assessment was issued.
``(6) Failure to pay.--If a person fails to pay an
assessment of a civil penalty--
``(A) after the order making the assessment becomes final,
and if such person does not file a petition for judicial
review of the order in accordance with paragraph (5); or
``(B) after a court in an action brought under paragraph
(4) has entered a final judgment in favor of the Secretary;
the Attorney General shall recover the amount assessed (plus
interest at currently prevailing rates from the date of the
expiration of the 60-day period referred to in paragraph (5)
or the date of such final judgment, as the case may be) in an
action brought in any appropriate district court of the
United States. In such an action, the validity, amount, and
appropriateness of such penalty shall not be subject to
review.''.
(b) Inclusion of Labeling Requirements in Definition of
Misbranded.--Section 4(h) of the Poultry Products Inspection
Act (21 U.S.C. 453(h)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (11);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (12) and
inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following paragraph:
``(13) if it fails to bear a label or labeling as required
by section 8A.''.
SEC. 906. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This title and the amendments made by this title take
effect upon the expiration of the 180-day period beginning on
the date of the enactment of this title.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
[[Page H5782]]
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico reserves a point of
order.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Monday, July 10, 2000, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and the gentleman from New Mexico
(Mr. Skeen) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, last year 100 million acres of genetically engineered
crops were planted in the United States. Last year the American people
consumed dozens of products made of genetically engineered materials
without any knowledge or understanding of some of the issues which are
sweeping this world concerning genetically engineered food. The
countries of the European Union, Australia, New Zealand and Japan are
now discussing labeling regimes which would give people the right to
know what they are eating, which would give people the right to know if
food they are eating is genetically engineered, because concerns have
been expressed all over the world about the possible allergenicity of
genetically engineered food, possible toxicity, transfer of antibiotic
resistance, and unintended side effects that come with this technology.
When the Food and Drug Administration approved genetically engineered
food, they said that such food was substantially equivalent to
conventional foods. But the fact of the matter is that when you are
using a gene gun to shoot a gene from a different species into a target
to be genetically engineered, you are hardly relying on nature. You are
relying on a process, the safety of which has not been proven and the
safety of which should have been checked out 10 years before these
products were introduced into our food supply.
We know some of the stories, what happened with the monarch butterfly
in one study where pollen which migrated from genetically engineered
corn went to the milkweed plants on which monarch butterflies fed and
in this study of Cornell University half of the monarch butterflies in
this population were killed.
Now, there are some serious questions raised about what happens when
genetic material moves across a distance, settles on other crops and
can create unintended side effects. People have a right to know if
their food has been altered in any way. That is one of the reasons why
and it is almost a fundamental thing that is so uniquely American
because years ago this Congress fought successfully for bills which
forced the FDA to have manufacturers disclose all the contents of the
food that we eat.
Imagine if you had a problem with your diet where you had to be
concerned about the fat content of your food, but you did not have fat
content listed on a product that you consumed. Or if you had a problem
with too much sugar, and you could not have any labeling of what the
sugar content was. Americans know how important these issues are with
their diet. Today, the issues have changed with technology. Genetically
engineered food poses new risks that have not yet been adequately
researched, and the FDA has a responsibility to tell this to the
American people. The least we can do is to label genetically engineered
food. The least we can do is to give people the right to know what is
in the food they eat. The least we can do is follow the example that is
set by all of the nations of the European Union in saying that
genetically engineered foods have to be labeled.
Why are the people of the United States, who in polls that have been
taken, have been demonstrated to favor labeling by close to 90 percent,
being denied this chance to have their food labeled if it is
genetically modified? Think about it. People have a right to know. That
is what this bill is about, giving people the opportunity to know what
is in the food they eat.
There is one product which has been talked about, a flavor saver
tomato which takes a gene from a flounder and shoots it into a tomato
to make the tomato more weather resistant. Now, in God's green acres,
tomatoes and flounders do not mate. Nature has certain separations
which makes it possible for species to grow without trying to have
transspecies communication. What is happening is that genetic
engineering is creating new possibilities which defy the laws of nature
and God.
And so we need to take a stand and to say we ought to be testing this
food, we ought to test it for toxicity, we ought to test it for
allergenicity, we ought to test it for all kinds of safety problems,
but before we get to that we certainly must label it.
That is why I brought this bill to the Congress. I am not going to
ask for a vote on it today, but this issue is going to be brought back
over and over until we have a labeling bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New Mexico insist on his point
of order?
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I continue my reservation.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio which would mandate
labeling of foods derived from biotechnology. The amendment which
purports to strengthen consumer choice is not only out of order but
actually limits consumer choice. I say that based on a couple of
realities. One, that the labeling in Europe has resulted in stores
taking these foods off the shelf and off the counter because of the
potential fear that something must be wrong with these foods if they do
label. It establishes an unnecessary warning, I think of little
relevance to the public, about food products that three U.S. regulatory
agencies, dozens of scientific societies, and literally thousands of
researchers have found just as safe and maybe safer than essentially
all the food we eat.
Except for a couple of fish products, everything in that grocery
store has been genetically modified, genetically modified by
crossbreeding, hybrid breeding. Sometimes that kind of breeding has
resulted in greater danger to the public than a more sophisticated
high-tech ability to separate out one or two genes, knowing the
characteristics of those genes, and then transplanting those genes.
Rather than the average agricultural plant that has up to 25,000 genes,
when you crossbreed them, you do not know what genes are going to
dominate, you do not know what kind of genes are going to be mutated.
So the new technology in the minds of many scientists is much safer.
I think it is important that we do not inhibit the sale and
production of these foods. We already have 1,000 products genetically
modified, approved, that are on the market. We have three regulatory
agencies overseeing it.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Ohio, which would mandate labeling of foods derived
from biotechnology. The amendment, which purports to strengthen
consumer choice, not only is out of order but in reality it limits
consumer choice. It is an attack on food products produced with the new
technology. It establishes an unnecessary warning of little relevance
to the public about food products that three U.S. regulatory agencies,
dozens of scientific societies, and literally thousands of researchers
have found just as safe--and maybe safer--than essentially all foods we
eat. Most everything in the grocery store has been produced using gene
transfer by traditional crossbreeding methods. It is therefore crucial
that we not reduce efforts in our regulatory agencies to assure that
all foods are safe which is compromised when we pay special attention
to a particular category of food.
On April 13, 2000, I issued a Chairman's report on plant genomics and
agricultural biotechnology. This report was the culmination of three
hearings I held on the issue as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Basic
Research, at which some of the Nation's leading scientists testified.
One of the issues I dealt with in some detail in the report was
mandatory labeling.
What I found is that there is no scientific justification for
labeling foods based on the method by which they are produced. Labeling
of agricultural biotechnology products would confuse, not inform,
consumers and send a misleading message on safety.
The Food and Drug Administration has more than 15 years of experience
in evaluating the food-based products of biotechnology and more than 20
years of experience with medical products of biotechnology. FDA's
decision not to require labeling is consistent both with the law and
with its ``Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant
Varieties.'' More to the point, consumers have a lifetime of direct
personal experience with
[[Page H5783]]
foods genetically modified through hybridization and other means that
are indistinguishable from those produced using biotechnology.
FDA bases labeling decisions on whether there are material
differences between the new plant-based food and its traditional
counterpart. These material differences include changes in the new
plant that are significant enough that the common or usual name of the
plant no longer applies, or if a safety or usage issue exists that
warrants consumer notification.
Despite this sensible policy, biotechnology's critics continue to
argue that foods created using recombinant DNA techniques should bear a
label revealing that fact. This view is based on large part on the
faulty supposition that the potential for unintended and undetected
differences between these foods and those produced through conventional
means is cause for a label based solely on the method of production of
the plant.
The risks for potentially unintended effects of agricultural
biotechnology on the safety of new plant-based foods are conceptually
no different than the risks for those plants derived from conventional
breeding. As described in FDA's Statement of Policy, ``The agency is
not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new
methods differ from other food in any meaningful or uniform way, or
that, as a class, foods developed by the new techniques present any
different or greater safety concern than foods developed by traditional
plant breeding.'' This view was echoed by the research scientists who
testified before the Subcommittee on the subject.
Indeed, there is a genuine fear that labeling biotech foods based on
their method of production would be the equivalent of a ``skull and
crossbones''--that the very presence of a label would indicate to the
average consumer that safety risks exist, when the scientific evidence
shows that they do not. Labeling advocates who argue otherwise are
being disingenuous. The United Kingdom's new mandatory labeling law,
for example, was put forward ostensibly to enhance consumer choice.
Instead, it has prompted British food producers and retailers to remove
all recombinant DNA constituents from the products they sell to avoid
labeling.
Mr. Chairman, mandatory labels indicating the method of genetic
manipulation clearly would be extremely confusing, and of little
relevance, to consumers. FDA's current policy on labeling is
scientifically and legally sound and should be maintained. I urge my
colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. SKEEN. I continue to reserve my point of order, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I wanted to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for his
leadership and moving the Congress to assure that consumers have
quality foods and they do not have to worry about reactions, allergic
reactions or dietary reactions to what are in foods. Even though at
this point the gentleman has chosen to withdraw this amendment, his
leadership has encouraged the subcommittee to include in the report
directive language to get the U.S. Department of Agriculture to work
more closely with the Food and Drug Administration to make sure that
decisions are based on sound, verifiable science.
{time} 1415
We expect the Department to provide sufficient information to
consumers about bioengineered foods, and we have included language
explaining that we want the Food and Drug Administration and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture to work across agency lines to provide a
unified approach to this type of consumer safety and consumer
information.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for his active leadership
on this issue.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman and the
gentleman; and we will be back with this another time.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I have several amendments at the desk. I
would like to proceed at this time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman's amendments are not in order under the
order of the House.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Waters), for whom I have the highest respect, who has been such a
leader on civil rights matters, certainly those before the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, to discuss the first of several amendments
the gentlewoman wishes offer.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, the first amendment is a $1 million set-
aside from the Commodity Credit Corporation that would pay 20 percent
monthly interest rates to those farmers whose claims are in arrears for
more than 60 days.
Let me say what has prompted this. Many Members, from both sides of
the aisle, have worked very, very hard to correct some of the
injustices perpetrated by the Department of Agriculture years past. A
lot of good work went into waiving the statute of limitations so that
claims could be refiled and that we could have an administrative
process by which to take care of those farmers who had been denied
years past.
In addition to that, many Members from both sides of the aisle
supported the class action lawsuit. The class action lawsuit was
successful, and there was a consent decree, and there was a whole
process put in place, with a monitor, with facilitators and with
adjudicators to process these claims.
Well, many of the farmers who have filed claims in good faith are now
waiting for months to try and get those claims adjudicated, and it is
quite unfortunate that those people who have the responsibility for
processing these claims either have not been able to get their act
together so that they could process them in a timely manner, or they
are just negligent in what they are supposed to be doing.
One of the things I discovered some time ago is when you are dealing
with small business people, such as these small farmers, you can
literally drive them out of business by not processing their claims
where they have expectations to be reimbursed for the past
discrimination that they have experienced, whether it is in the
agricultural community or just in the small business community. If you
then assess those who have the responsibility and force them to have to
pay interest rates to facilitate these claims, we find we get things
done a lot faster.
If in fact we have farmers out there who are filing claims and if
those claims cannot be processed in 60 days, this amendment would
simply say you have to pay them interest rates and get it done. This
will move up the process. This will take care of the small family
farmers, the small business persons, who are sitting there waiting
month in and month out to have these claims adjudicated.
I would ask for support on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. May I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining,
Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Ohio has 2 minutes remaining.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) to discuss her second
amendment.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, the second amendment is a $500,000 request
from the Commodity Credit Corporation to procure additional contractors
for the Judge Adjudication Mediation Service for the resolution of
outstanding claims under the Pigford v. Glickman consent decree. I
might add that there should be a correction in the way ``Pigford'' has
been spelled in the amendment that we submitted.
Let me just say that this amendment is consistent with what we are
trying to do to facilitate these claims. Again, you have these farmers
who filed these claims in good faith, and we have supported them in
good faith from both sides of the aisle with the class action lawsuit.
The judge put together this process by which to get it done.
We have the appropriate amount of dollars by which to get it done. We
have the process that has been signed off on. We have so-called
monitors. We have the facilitators and the adjudicators, but it is not
getting done. This would satisfy some the complaints that I am hearing,
that there are not enough people involved in this contractor
relationship that we have to get the job done.
[[Page H5784]]
So this $500,000 from the Commodity Credit Corporation would simply
procure additional contractors, speed it up, get it done. The money is
there in the system by which to do it. This would just supply $500,000
to get additional contractors to make sure it gets done.
If we take this action, and we take the action for assessing 20
percent monthly interest rates for those farmers who have not had their
claims done, I think we will be able to move this process. Many of the
farmers who are out there do not know what is going on. They do not
understand the complications of the system. They do not understand all
that has been done in the consent decree.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask for support so that we could move this
process.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the gentlewoman that in traveling the
country and seeing that at least 70 percent of these civil rights cases
are in the State of Mississippi, and in following a bit about how the
cases are being adjudicated, I think the gentlewoman brings a very
important set of issues to the floor today, and that is the difficulty
with processing these cases, some of the bureaucratic, not just
inertia, but, for example, when a case is settled, a claim is settled,
then, for some reason, even after injury has been found, then that
family's case is turned over to the FBI. Why? What is going on out
there?
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Waters) on such a critical question that the
Department should be moving on expeditiously, and there should be
justice in this system and justice should be swift and sure.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate all of the work the
gentlewoman has put in, to not only waive the statute of limitations,
that took tremendous work to get done, but the support that the
gentlewoman has given with the class action lawsuit, the support that
the gentlewoman has given to the Members of the Congressional Black
Caucus and others who have been involved in all of this.
Additionally, along with the two ideas of trying to get interest when
there has been a delay and trying to get more money to have more
contractors, the last amendment that I had would be a transfer of funds
from the position of Special Assistant to the Secretary for Civil
Rights to a newly created position of Assistant Secretary of Civil
Rights.
Now, this is very simple. What we have actually in the Department of
Agriculture is a violation of the EEOC law, because what you have is
you have a position, and in that position they not only are trying to
supposedly do the work of the Civil Rights Division of the Department
of Agriculture, they handle personnel for Agriculture and some other
kinds of things that put them in direct conflict.
This idea would simply have a position of Assistant Secretary of
Civil Rights that we would request so that we will have a way by which
the complaints and the bottlenecks can be addressed at the highest
levels so that we can get this behind us once and for all.
I do not know of anybody who is opposed to getting this done. As a
matter of fact, these farmers are part of the great agricultural
community of this Nation, who work hard, day in and day out, to supply
the food stuffs that we need as citizens. These are the farmers that
continue and persist in an attempt to do farming, no matter how
difficult it is.
We have seen many of these farmers who have lost farms and come back
and start all over again. Many of them have witnessed their ancestors,
who have died trying to farm the land without money, without money to
even buy the seed that they need to get planted. Many of them are
sitting there now, not knowing if they are going to be foreclosed on.
Many of them were born farmers, and they want to die farmers. They love
what they do. They love the time and effort that many of their family
members have put into farming, and I think we deserve to give them some
support. I think they deserve to have these claims adjudicated. They
deserve to have them processed in a timely manner.
As it has been said, they have been found to be eligible, their
claims have been received, they have been investigated, and they are
owed the money. Why are they being held up?
Well, one question has been raised, there are some folks who are
maybe incompetent. Others are playing games. But I think it defies the
direction of this House.
I would simply ask that we receive the kind of support that is
necessary to process these claims and get it done.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, again I want to thank the gentlewoman for
her national leadership on this issue, and to say as we move towards
conference, believe me, I will take these amendments into consideration
and see if there is not some way that we can get additional momentum
within the Department. There is absolutely no reason that a farmer
against whom injury has been found should have to go bankrupt simply
because the agency has not delivered the assistance in a timely manner
and the award in a timely manner.
So I think the gentlewoman has some excellent suggestions here. I am
sure the farmers who are listening and those who are facing this
litigation are very grateful for her leadership.
I was listening to our former colleague, Congressman Kweisi Mufume,
yesterday at the National Association for the Advancement of Colored
Persons discuss the agricultural issue, and I do not know that I have
ever heard that from the President of the NAACP before, but it is great
to hear. It is a priority for them as well.
We look forward to working for the gentlewoman. I thank her for her
leadership on behalf of civil rights for farmers, regardless of color
or region. I would say to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters),
we appreciate her great, great heart and her sense of justice.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman's amendments are directed at a serious
problem at USDA that has taken far too long to fix. After 5 years of
the subcommittee's reviews of the civil rights situation, both for USDA
employees and users of the programs, I am convinced that the problem is
one of management, not money. We have consistently increased the
Departmental Administration budget over the past 5 years, and that is
where the Office of Civil Rights is housed.
Two years ago, at the administration's request, we put language in
our bill that increased the scope of the statute of limitations so that
minority farmers could press their claims, and that cost $15 million.
This year's supplemental legislation, again at the request of the
Department of Agriculture, includes $26.2 million for additional
personnel at Farm Service Agency offices and $13 million specifically
for expenses related to implement the minority farmers' consent decree
and the Pigford decision. In addition, we have supplied millions of
dollars in outreach education and research programs for minority
farmers.
Mr. Chairman, what is clear from several reports by the Inspector
General and by the General Accounting Office, USDA's own civil rights
action team and the farmers themselves, is that only a commitment at
the most senior level of the Department will resolve whatever problems
remain. I do not believe that any kind of legislation can create that
commitment. It must originate with the Secretary himself.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield
5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Georgia (Mr.
Bishop), regarding concern related to the draft that is before us.
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentlewoman for yielding
me time for the purposes of a colloquy with the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Kingston) regarding an amendment.
Before I address that, let me commend the gentlewoman from California
for her effort on behalf of black farmers. I think that the colloquy
that was held between the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), along with the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the subcommittee chair, is very appropriate, it is
on target, and
[[Page H5785]]
it is something we need to move forward on with dispatch.
{time} 1430
With that said, I would like to engage the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Kingston) in a colloquy regarding the Committee on Appropriation's
bill.
On March 21 of this year, I requested of the Committee on
Appropriations' Subcommittee on Agriculture that two important projects
be included in the agriculture appropriations bill for the year 2001.
The requests under the USDA Agricultural Research Service included an
ARS project to develop, evaluate, and transfer technology to improve
the efficiency and quality of peanuts in Dawson, Georgia; and an ARS
project on peanut quality research to develop technology and
methodology for peanut quality management during production and
postharvest processing, which is also in Dawson, Georgia.
The request was that the two projects be funded at the fiscal year
2000 levels, including reinstatement of funding for the 15 percent
rescission. The total appropriation agreed to in subcommittee for the
two projects and the rescission was $1.15 million.
During the markup of the full Committee on Appropriations for
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and
Related Agencies Appropriation Bill for 2001, it is my understanding
that the gentleman offered an amendment which would strike the
provision of $1.15 million for the two projects that I just referred
to, and the rescission, and would insert in lieu of that, ARS funds
totaling $1.15 million for several other projects, including $250,000
for category 1 nematology research, $350,000 for an agricultural water
use management project, $300,000 for an increase in funds provided for
the chicken genome mapping project, and $250,000 to increase funds
provided for research on the Avian Leukosis-J virus and the Avian
disease and oncology lab.
Could the gentleman clarify for me the circumstances under which the
two Dawson peanut projects were dropped, I assume inadvertently,
pursuant to our conversations from the final committee report; and, if
the gentleman would engage in some discussion with me with regard to
the added four additional projects, which are very worthy projects and
which I support and I join with the gentleman in requesting that they
be funded. But because I support funding for the two projects that were
eliminated as well as the projects that were substituted in lieu
thereof, I would like to ask the gentleman to work with us, since they
are all important to Georgia producers; they are important to the
Southeast in agriculture and to agriculture across the country, and
particularly the quality research at the peanut lab in Dawson.
Would the gentleman be willing to work with us in conference to make
sure that we are able to not only restore the two projects that were
funded, but to ask the conference committee if they would also continue
the four projects that the gentleman inserted in there, which we think
are worthy and which were also proposed by us?
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BISHOP. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, if I could respond, what we would like to
do is continue working with the gentleman on these important projects
because we know the gentleman's interest in them; and the gentleman is
correct, there are a number of worthy projects here. The gentleman as
an advocate of agriculture, the gentleman as an advocate of peanuts,
the gentleman has worked hard for research, because it does not just
have impact in Georgia; but it does nationally and not just for farmers
who are in need of help right now, but for consumers who want to make
sure that they have an abundant and safe food supply.
So we will continue working with the gentleman in the conference
arena. It is also my understanding that the gentleman has secured some
funding from another body which we will endeavor to match on the House
side. I will be on the conference committee, and I will work with the
gentleman on this.
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, these two projects, as
the gentleman is correct in saying, are included in the report language
of the Senate Committee on Appropriations Report, report 106-288 at
page 34.
We certainly appreciate the gentleman's pledge of cooperation, and we
would appreciate that very much; and we think it will be in the best
interests of not just Georgia peanut farmers but the southeastern
farmers and peanut farmers all across the country and agriculture as a
whole.
So I thank the gentleman very much, and I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, Amendment No. 15.
The CHAIRMAN. Amendment No. 15 was not made in order under the order
of the House of yesterday.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, we have an amendment that would essentially attempt to
address the farm crisis affecting so many regions across this country
by providing $80 million under emergency designation out of funds from
the Commodity Credit Corporation for equity capital and grants to small
and medium-sized producers for feasibility studies, business
development strategies, restructuring small and medium-sized
enterprises, and the processing and marketing of agricultural
commodities organized through cooperatives.
Ever since the passage of the Freedom to Farm Act, billions and
billions of dollars have been spent by the people of the United States
in trying to prop up rural America in emergency payments to our
producers. From the numbers that I have been able to obtain, that
emergency assistance has amounted to over $24.5 billion, and that is
with a ``B.'' In order to qualify for those programs, one does not even
have to have a crop in the ground.
A recent GAO study that came out indicated that, in fact, in 1999,
almost a third of the $4.5 billion in payments went to farms that would
not have received it had we been using a traditional production
measurement system that had existed prior to Freedom to Farm. So what
we have is a situation where we have people going bankrupt in rural
America, we have an AMTA payment, or an Agricultural Market Transition
Assistance payment, that really does not go to people who desperately
need it in many, many cases; and we need to find other measures to help
farmers weather and adjust in this economy.
The amendment that I am proposing would help farmers meet the market,
and it is tough. Whether one is a sugar beet producer, whether one is a
beef producer, whether one is in feed grains, it really does not matter
what, unless one can economically restructure in this economy, find
higher value-added products and bring those to market more directly
with prices being what they are, one cannot afford to have a farm
business that provides the majority of one's income.
We know that while farmers want to depend on the market, we have not
provided the economic tools for them to do that, and there is not any
farm family in this country that wants to exist on subsidy.
This amendment would actually spend far fewer dollars than current
programs, and it would offer the opportunity of establishing co-op
development ventures that would have permanence, would have a lasting
impact in many places across this country.
If we think about it, the amendment that we have drafted establishes
a cap. No particular enterprise could get more than $500,000, excuse
me, I should say $10 million out of the $80 million; and we would be
looking at ways of helping farmers group together in order to use their
combined assets to meet the market. It is real dollars that can help
them not just bounce along in this economy, but perhaps survive long
term.
The amendment provides for grants that can be targeted toward
feasibility studies and business development plans. We know many
farmers do not know how to organize into a marketing co-op for milk,
for sugar products, for honey products, whatever it might be. This
would give them another mechanism.
I know I was shocked to meet with sugar beet growers from Michigan
who were just up against it, and not able to make it in the economy;
and they said, Congresswoman, if we could just figure
[[Page H5786]]
out how to reorganize ourselves as a business unit, we really want to
remain in business. What amazed me about that conversation, in spite of
the devastation that they are facing and even bankruptcy in some cases,
they were struggling to find the means to meet the market. I was so
impressed with their optimism; and, therefore, I would hope that as we
move toward conference, that this kind of cooperative development
mechanism might be able to be embedded into the base bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield any remaining time that I might have to the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell).
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) has
expired.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the time to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Boswell), who has been such a leader in crafting this bill as well as
the agriculture authorization bill and the crop insurance measure that
was before us a few weeks ago, and we thank him for his leadership on
behalf of rural America in every aspect.
(Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Kaptur) for yielding me the time.
To the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), if I could just take a
personal moment, a mutual friend of ours down there in New Mexico said
it right, I say to the gentleman. He said, you are a good man. I have
watched the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for the last 4 years, and they have their hearts
in what they are doing, and I appreciate it.
I would like to associate myself with the remarks that have been made
by the gentlewoman from Ohio. I think that we do, in fact, have an
emergency; and I understand that this amendment is not going to be
dealt with today, because it would fall in that category. So I
understand that. I know that the Chairman will carry forth in that rule
and so on.
But I do think we have an emergency. We could make a case for it. The
reason I say that is because in my area and the chairman's area and the
gentlewoman from Ohio's area and all of those across rural America, we
see the family farm, which is hard to define, but we see it going by
the wayside. Bigger and bigger, much more corporate farming going on,
and so on. So we do have an emergency, I believe. Here are some of the
reasons I feel that way.
Mr. Chairman, we have a safe, plentiful, affordable food supply
compared cost-wise to any other modern country in the world, as the
percentage of disposable income is so much less. We are privileged to
have that. I see that in danger of escaping from us. We should think of
it. How many of us here, myself included, pick up the newspaper and we
turn over to the stock market and we see what is going on. We are
concerned and we ought to be, and we want to see whatever we have
invested in to have some profitability; and if it does not, we are
concerned. If it goes through a quarter and it is down, why, we want
something done about it; and that is just the way it is. There is
nothing wrong with profitability; it is good, the way it should be. But
when the prices are down, the CEOs are under a lot of pressure, and we
see things change.
When it comes to food and fiber, I think that is a different
category. What we feed this Nation and around the world with is
something different. Every one of us in this country, all of us, should
be very much tuned into this because the amount of one's disposable
income that one will pay for one's safe, plentiful food is going to
change if we do not get a grip on this. It is just simply going to
happen.
So this idea that the gentlewoman brings forth, I think, needs
consideration. The only tool that I see out there right now that is
effectively working, and I have been in part of that system for a long
time; I chaired a board for a long time, I am an active member in my
local district and I live on the farm, is to allow those communities to
have those co-ops and to have the opportunity to purchase, and the
advantage of their shareholders and also to market and to be part of
the value added to the system, to be part of the value added; and we
are not doing that now.
So I applaud the gentlewoman for her efforts to try to create some
resources to do that. We have seen a little of that done in some
isolated places, and it works. For the producer to have a part of the
action for the value added, it just makes sense.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOSWELL. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, coming from Iowa, I am sure that the
gentleman has noted the greater and greater concentration in the
agriculture industry, and it is much harder for producers to be
company-equal partners in any kind of negotiation related to farm
product and to actually bring that product to market. So I wanted to
emphasize what the gentleman has been saying about how farms have had
to get bigger and bigger and bigger, and even to try to meet market of
today, it is almost impossible for many of these producers to do that.
So I was interested in the gentleman's co-op experience and why that
is relevant as we try to finance.
{time} 1445
Mr. BOSWELL. When they can co-operate together they still have the
ownership of it, and it is going right back to that family farm.
Whatever is gained there is a good thing for not only them but for the
community, for the State, for the country.
I think we have to look for opportunities to enhance that. That is
what the gentlewoman is trying to do. I would ask the chairman if he
would help, and if we get a chance to do things for these people, that
we pull together to do it. I have confidence that the gentleman will.
I am delighted that I can come here this afternoon and participate in
this dialogue. We are doing the right thing. Everybody is interested to
have safe, plentiful, and affordable food. We ought to do everything we
can to be sure that happens. I say our chances are much better if we
have it spread over the land, over a number of family farms, rather
than in the collective hands of a few.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, as we draw to the conclusion of this bill, I just want
to remind Members of the shortcomings which will still lead people like
me to vote against it on final passage, even though I fully recognize
that the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) has done everything he
could within the totally inadequate allocation provided to him to
produce a bill that would be worthy of the House's support.
I would point out that in a letter from the Executive Office of the
President it is made clear that ``Given the severe underfunding of
critical programs and highly objectionable language provisions in the
bill, the President's senior advisers would recommend that he veto the
bill if it were presented to him in its current form.''
I think it is useful to underline what a few of those reasons are.
First of all, with respect to food safety, this bill underfunds the
budget request for USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service, which
inspects meat and poultry, by over $14 million.
This bill severely underfunds Department efforts to deal with market
concentration and abusive practices within the industry. It falls some
$53 million short of the budget request in dealing with problems such
as citrus canker in Florida, the Asian longhorn beetle infestation that
is killing hardwood trees in New York and Illinois, the plum pox
outbreak in Pennsylvania, bovine TB in Michigan, Pierce's disease in
California's grape industry, Mediterranean fruitflies, and similar
problems.
Those may seem like small problems if one does not farm. If one
farms, they are huge obstructions to making a living. This bill does
not sufficiently respond to those problems.
In the area of conservation programs, it falls $70 million short of
the budget request for conservation operations at the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, and we are told that will require the elimination
of about 260 staff who help farmers and ranchers design and implement
measures to reduce soil
[[Page H5787]]
erosion, protect water supplies, and the like.
It also is $180 million below the administration's request for rural
development. It is short on P.L. 480, overseas food donation programs.
The agricultural research and extension program would be $63 million
below the request.
The bill contains the dangerous rider which restricts FDA and USDA
actions to reduce Salmonella contamination in eggs.
Most importantly, in my view, there is a huge hole in this bill
because it contains nothing to deal with the problem of collapsing
prices on the farm, and whether we are talking about dairy, where I
come from, or other commodities, the fact is that farmers are in dire
straits because of the collapse of market prices.
The collapse of market prices in my view has been brought on by the
ill-advised Freedom to Farm Act, which creates a very weird situation.
I know of no other field, no other economic field in this country in
which, if we had an oversupply of product, we would not cut back on
production in order to bring ourselves into some equilibrium between
supply and demand. Only in agriculture do farmers face the practical
reality that if they individually want to try to beat the problem, they
have to increase rather than decrease production.
That produces a national farm policy which makes no sense. In the
process it drives down the price paid to individual farms and farmers.
For all of those reasons, while I respect greatly the gentleman from
New Mexico and I believe that he has done the best job he can given the
allocation made available to him, that allocation is woefully
inadequate. It does not meet the needs of the next 5 years in
agriculture, and until it comes back from conference with what I would
hope would be some rational compromises on some of these items, I
personally will not be in a position to support the bill.
I regret that, but I think that this bill has a long way to go before
it is going to receive a presidential signature.
Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 538, proceedings will now
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed
in the following order: amendment No. 39 offered by the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio); amendment No. 48 offered by the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Sanford); amendment No. 68 offered by the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Burton).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 39 Offered by Mr. DeFazio
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate 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.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 15-minute vote, followed by two 5-minute
votes.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 190,
noes 228, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 382]
AYES--190
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Clay
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Crane
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilman
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Hill (IN)
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hyde
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
Lantos
Larson
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Moakley
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Northup
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Pease
Pelosi
Petri
Phelps
Porter
Price (NC)
Ramstad
Rangel
Rivers
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Smith (NJ)
Snyder
Spratt
Stark
Sununu
Tancredo
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Tierney
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Velazquez
Wamp
Waters
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--228
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Chambliss
Clayton
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cramer
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fowler
Frost
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Minge
Mink
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pastor
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rodriguez
Rogan
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanchez
Sandlin
Saxton
Schaffer
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sweeney
Talent
Tanner
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (NM)
Upton
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--16
Becerra
Callahan
Campbell
Chenoweth-Hage
Davis (FL)
Forbes
McCollum
McIntosh
McNulty
Mollohan
Owens
Payne
Scarborough
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Vento
[[Page H5788]]
{time} 1511
Messrs. HUNTER, VITTER, STUPAK, DeMINT, OBERSTAR, ROGAN, RYUN of
Kansas, and Ms. SANCHEZ changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. TIERNEY, Mr. HEFLEY and Ms. CARSON changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Announcement By The Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 538, the Chair announces
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each amendment on
which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.
Amendment No. 48 Offered by Mr. Sanford
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on Amendment No. 48 offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Sanford) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 166,
noes 255, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 383]
AYES--166
Ackerman
Andrews
Archer
Baker
Baldwin
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Bass
Bereuter
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bliley
Blumenauer
Boehner
Bono
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Camp
Capps
Capuano
Castle
Chabot
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Conyers
Cox
Crane
Crowley
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Doggett
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Eshoo
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Ganske
Gejdenson
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holt
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Inslee
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
Kildee
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaTourette
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Markey
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meehan
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moakley
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Northup
Olver
Oxley
Paul
Pease
Petri
Pitts
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Ramstad
Rivers
Roemer
Rogan
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Smith (NJ)
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Sununu
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Tierney
Toomey
Upton
Velazquez
Wamp
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Wexler
Wolf
Wu
NOES--255
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Allen
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barton
Bateman
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Canady
Cannon
Cardin
Carson
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cubin
Cummings
Danner
Davis (IL)
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Emerson
Engel
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Ford
Frost
Gallegly
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hoyer
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kilpatrick
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larson
Latham
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (NY)
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Napolitano
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Ose
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rodriguez
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Sweeney
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--13
Becerra
Campbell
Chenoweth-Hage
Forbes
McCollum
McIntosh
McNulty
Owens
Payne
Scarborough
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Vento
{time} 1518
Mr. SIMPSON changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no''.
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 68 Offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 168,
noes 253, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 384]
AYES--168
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Biggert
Bilbray
Blunt
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Callahan
Camp
Cannon
Chabot
Coburn
Collins
Cook
Costello
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Evans
Everett
Filner
Foley
Fowler
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
Kleczka
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Lazio
Leach
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Manzullo
McHugh
McInnis
McKinney
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mink
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
[[Page H5789]]
Stearns
Strickland
Stump
Sununu
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Vitter
Walden
Wamp
Waters
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--253
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Buyer
Calvert
Canady
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Ehrlich
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fletcher
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Granger
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holt
Hooley
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Minge
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stupak
Sweeney
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--13
Becerra
Campbell
Chenoweth-Hage
Forbes
Herger
McCollum
McIntosh
McNulty
Owens
Scarborough
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Vento
{time} 1526
Messrs. SAXTON, DeLAY and ROYCE and Mrs. NORTHUP changed their vote
from ``no'' to ``aye''.
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to come before the
Committee?
If not, the Clerk will read the final three lines of the bill.
The Clerk read as follows:
This Act may be cited as the ``Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001''.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with
the comments expressed today by my colleague from Minnesota, Mr. Minge,
regarding the Farm Planning and Analysis System presented in use by the
Minnesota Farm Service Agency. This software has served as an extremely
valuable financial management tool for thousands of Minnesota farmers
and saved thousands of man hours for our FSA employees in Minnesota.
While I appreciate the Department of Agriculture's move toward a common
computing environment, I strongly encourage the Committee to consider
the superior capabilities of FINPACK and help ensure an appropriate
resolution that allows our producers to continue using this popular
tool.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a few important comments
about the inequities of continuing to exclude the U.S. mink industry
from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Market Access
Program (MAP). This is an important issue for the mink industry and its
many small ranchers and allied industries that reside in some 28 U.S.
states where mink is produced.
Since 1996, U.S. mink has been unfairly excluded from the MAP
program. This exclusion is primarily the result of political pressure
brought to bear by animal rights groups. The exclusion has nothing
whatsoever to do with the mink industry's eligibility for the program
or the success of the mink industry's MAP program prior to 1996.
Importantly, the mink industry's prior export promotion program was
considered a model program by USDA. The industry's MAP activities,
which were used to promote the superior quality of U.S. rancher-raised
mink in Europe and Asia, successfully increased U.S. mink exports by
25% between 1992 and 1995. In the last year of participation, exports
of U.S. mink skins exceeded $100 million.
Today, almost all sectors of American agriculture, except mink,
participate in the MAP program. The mink industry is no different from
the beef, pork, chicken and sheep industries in the United States, all
of which receive substantial MAP funding. Moreover, most U.S. mink
ranchers are small, second- and third-generation family-owned
operations. The mink auction houses are cooperatives and small
businesses, all eligible for the MAP program.
This is a U.S. industry that sells nearly 95% of its annual
production abroad. All foreign producers, particularly those in Europe,
are heavily subsidized. MAP money is needed for U.S. mink ranchers to
effectively promote the superior quality of U.S. ranch-raised mink and
compete successfully against this heavily subsidized foreign
production. Thus, the exclusion only ensures that our foreign
competitors dominate the global mink market.
I am deeply disappointed that it was not possible to restore MAP
funding for mink through the 2001 Agriculture Appropriations bill. This
inequity, however, can and should be corrected. Accordingly, I strongly
urge Mr. Combest and other members of the Agriculture Committee to
exert their best efforts to restore MAP funding in the next possible
authorizing vehicle that comes before the Agriculture Committee.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Fiscal Year
2001 Agriculture Appropriations bill (H.R. 4461). This bill provides
$75.4 billion for agriculture programs. While this is a significant
amount of funding, it is $524 million or 1 percent less than this
year's budget and it is $1.9 billion less than the amount requested by
the Administration. Farmers and ranchers in Texas and throughout our
Nation are facing financial hardships because of the low cost of
commodities. This legislation will help many of these family farmers to
keep their land and to provide supplemental payments for their farm
products.
Eighty percent of this bill is dedicated to mandatory spending
programs such as food stamps and the Women, Infants and Children (WIC)
Program. I strongly support these programs and believe that many
children and low-income families benefit from these programs. For many
working families, these nutritional programs are vitally necessary to
ensure that they have sufficient food to eat and each day.
I am particularly supportive of the human nutrition research programs
though the Agriculture Research Service of the United States Department
of Agriculture. I am disappointed that the House Appropriations
Committee provided level funding for the six human nutrition centers
nationwide, including the Children's Nutrition Research Center (CNRC)
at Baylor College of Medicine in cooperation with Texas Children's
Hospital, located in Houston, Texas. I am committed to working with the
House Appropriations Committee to provide additional funding for the
CNRC as this bill moves forward. The CNRC is dedicated to defining the
nutrient needs of healthy children from conception through adolescence,
and pregnancy and nursing women.
Since its inception in November 1978, the CNRC has focused on
critical questions relating to women and nutrition. These include
determining how the diet of a pregnant woman affects her health and the
health of her child and how a mother's nutrition affects lactation and
the nutrient contents of her milk. The center also has researched the
relationship between nutrition and the physical and mental development
of children. In addition, CNRC has conducted amazing research which has
identified the genes contributing to nutrient intakes and determined
the factors that regulate these genes. This research will lead to
valuable discoveries in the field of genetics.
I would like to highlight two recent discoveries made at the CNRC
that will help children live healthier, longer lives. The CNRC has
helped to develop a software dietary assessment program that enables
children to record what they eat. By recording their intake, children
are able to interact with a multi-media
[[Page H5790]]
game which encourages them to increase their fruit, juice, and
vegetables among fourth grade children.
Another important study provided a reference data for energy
(calorie) requirement for infants from birth to two years of age. These
data will form the basis of new infant caloric intake recommendations
currently under review by the Food and Nutrition Board of the National
Academy of Science. With proper nutrition, children will live healthier
lives and be receptive to learning.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill and all of its agricultural
programs.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hinchey-Walsh
language included in H.R. 4461, the FY 2001 Department of Agriculture
and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill. This emergency language is
vital for the apple growers in central Massachusetts and throughout New
England, and I thank both Mr. Hinchey and Chairman Walsh for their
leadership on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, the apple growers in my district were hurt by Hurricane
Floyd and by adverse weather conditions in 1999. The weather caused
what are usually sweet and delicious apples to become mealy and
unsuitable for normal eating. Instead of selling their products to
stores and markets for sale to the public, my growers were forced to
sell these lower quality apples to juicers. The problem, financially,
is that apples sold to make juice are sold at a price considerably
lower than apples sold for consumption. As a result, these growers
suffered significant financial loss and hardship from Hurricane Floyd.
This language is important because it will provide necessary
emergency relief for these growers. The $15 million in quality loss is
important for the growers in New England. It responds to what was a
true emergency--a hurricane that caused the loss of what is normally a
profitable crop. The $100 million for market loss is also vital for my
growers. Together, this emergency funding will provide the needed
relief for growers in New England who suffered through an extreme
weather situation that could have caused many growers to go out of
business.
Mr. Chairman, I received many calls from the apple growers in my
district asking for help because of Hurricane Floyd. I want to thank
all the apple growers in Worcester County who first brought this tragic
issue to my attention. In particular, I want to thank Mo Tougus of the
Tougus Family Farm in Northboro, Massachusetts; Sterling, Massachusetts
apple growers Robert Smiley and Anthony Melone; Ed O'Neil of JP
Sullivan and Company in Ayer, Massachusetts; and Ken Nicewicz from
Bolton, Massachusetts. I am pleased to be able to tell them that,
finally, help is on the way.
Mr. Chairman, this effort might have been lost if not for the
diligent work of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Secretary Dan
Glickman and Undersecretary Gus Schumacher deserve credit for
recognizing the need of these apple growers. As the former
Massachusetts State Commissioner of Agriculture, Undersecretary
Schumacher is a valuable resource and he deserves special recognition
for his work on behalf of apple growers. Locally, Charlie Costa, Kip
Graham and Paul Fischer of the Farm Service Agency in Massachusetts
were essential in the efforts to educate people in Congress about the
need of the apple growers in Massachusetts and across the country.
Their work locally was significant and helpful. Without the support and
technical assistance from these people, our apple growers may not have
received the emergency relief they so desperately need.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I fully support H.R. 4461, because it
provides funding for programs that will help assure the vitality of
agriculture in Georgia. This bill allocates funding for essential
programs, which allow further development and progress in food
production. In addition, H.R. 4461 provides financial support for
agricultural research that is crucial for finding solutions that will
allow and promote more cost-effective production methods and higher
quality results.
By allocating funding for research, this bill will help resolve
problems inhibiting productivity and development. More specifically,
research in pest and disease control, such as nematode and tomato
spotted wilt disease research, will enhance strategies used to combat
crop yield losses. Funding is also included for the development of more
efficient agricultural water usage that is critical to locations in
south Georgia where agricultural water usage comprises 50% of all water
consumed. Furthermore, the bill includes funding for the National
Center for Peanut Competitiveness for research directed toward
guaranteeing competitiveness for U.S. peanuts in the world market.
Funding for poultry disease research is also important to explore
diseases that limit and inhibit poultry production.
Support for these research efforts, coupled with funding for
promotional and marketing efforts, will help enable farmers to practice
more efficient methods and minimize the devastating losses with which
they have become all too familiar. I urge my colleagues to vote for
this bill and support America's farmers.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, for the past 23 years, Minnesota Farm
Service Agency borrowers have had access to a farm planning and
analysis system known as FINPACK. The software is a comprehensive
system that is of great benefit to producers, their lenders, and to the
Farm Service Agency that administers their loans. FINPACK, initially
developed by the University of Minnesota in 1972, became a Farmers Home
Administration (FmHA) initiated pilot project that began in six
Minnesota FmHA offices in 1977. Due to its effectiveness, additional
Minnesota FmHA offices began to use the system. Today FINPACK provides
monthly cash flows, enterprise analyses, budgeting and balance sheets
to nearly 10,000-15,000 producers in Minnesota.
By their nature, FSA borrowers are borrowers at risk. As the ``lender
of last resort'' and provider of ``supervised credit,'' FSA has a
mandate to help producers improve their management capacity and
ultimately their financial viability. Not only has FINPACK provided an
efficient system to help Minnesota producers in their strategic
planning, it has allowed a system of cooperation among educators,
extension agents, consultants, farm advocates, and bankers. As
producers develop their farm plan, they are able to provide the
computer file that contains all of the information to those who assist
them in their farm planning. Editing changes may be made immediately
and without return visits.
However, as valuable as FINPACK is to producers and their advisors,
it is equally valuable to Minnesota's FSA office employees. Minnesota
FSA estimates that FINPACK saves them $40,000 to $180,000 annually in
reduced contractor fees due to cooperation with educators and lenders.
With FSA's current staff resource shortages, the interagency and public
and private cooperative is invaluable to FSA county staff. The
Minnesota FSA field staff has unanimously asked for the ability to
continue to use FINPACK.
Unfortunately, the USDA recently announced that FSA must use the Farm
and Home Plan (FHP) and will not allow Minnesota FSA offices to use
FINPACK as part of USDA's attempt to comply with the ``Common Computing
Environment'' mandated by Congress. This issue has received national
attention. The National Association of Credit Supervisors, the FSA
employee organization for credit specialists, has passed a resolution
supporting continued use of FINPACK. While FINPACK is used by FSA only
in Minnesota, it is used by Risk Management Education programs in more
than 40 states.
The Farm and Home Plan (FHP) is used by FSA for credit applications.
The FHP meets minimum requirements for credit applications, but does
not provide the documentation required by FSA for Interest Assistance
applications. FSA requires a monthly cash flow plan for Interest
Assistance, but FHP does not have this capability. The FHP provides a
simple cash analysis not an accrual analysis as required by FSA for
Borrower Training. Furthermore, the FHP makes no attempt to comply with
ABA Farm Financial Standards.
FSA has represented that they have developed a generic interface,
allowing for usage of FINPACK by producers to be coordinated with FSA's
use of FHP. Essentially, FSA's FHP software stores data in a Microsoft
Access database. This means that any software program can export data
in Access format and it can be loaded into the Access database. However
FSA has not addressed how lenders, educators and producers can transfer
producer ID's so that the FHP knows where to store the data. Technology
appears to be a challenge for FSA. Currently FSA has two versions of
FHP software--one that runs on PCs and one that runs on their mainframe
System 36 machine. These two versions of the FHP are not interfaced and
cannot transfer data. This problem illustrates FSA's inability to deal
with this technology.
However, Farm Service Agency has refused to allow the continued use
of FINPACK based on the Common Computing Environment mandated by
Congress. While the need to streamline and have uniform systems is
important, it is not logical to insist that a superior system be
abandoned. FSA has determined that as of September 30, 2000 FINPACK is
not to be used any longer in FSA offices in Minnesota.
Over the six months, it has been difficult and frustrating to deal
with the USDA on this issue. While I am generally hesitant to introduce
legislation to address this administrative decision, I urge the
committee to work with the Minnesota delegation to develop a positive
resolution that allows producers to continue to use this valuable
financial tool.
{time} 1530
The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further amendments, under the rule, the
Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr.
[[Page H5791]]
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, pursuant to House Resolution 538, he reported the bill back
to the House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the
Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will
put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 339,
nays 82, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 385]
YEAS--339
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crowley
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fletcher
Foley
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sweeney
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Udall (NM)
Upton
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--82
Andrews
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Berkley
Berman
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Capuano
Carson
Clay
Coburn
Conyers
Coyne
Crane
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
Deutsch
Doggett
Eshoo
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gephardt
Gutierrez
Hefley
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Kennedy
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lantos
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
McDermott
McGovern
McInnis
McKinney
Meehan
Mica
Miller, George
Minge
Moran (VA)
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Rivers
Rohrabacher
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanford
Schakowsky
Sensenbrenner
Shays
Stark
Sununu
Tancredo
Tauscher
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Velazquez
Waters
Waxman
Weygand
Wu
NOT VOTING--13
Becerra
Campbell
Chenoweth-Hage
Forbes
McCollum
McIntosh
McNulty
Norwood
Owens
Rahall
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Vento
{time} 1545
Mr. KLECZKA changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. ARCHER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my position in support of final
passage of the vote that just occurred be expressed in the Record. I
was unavoidably detained in my office meeting with the CEO of U.S.
Airways and missed the vote.
____________________