[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 92 (Thursday, June 28, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H3738-H3744]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2330, AGRICULTURE, RURAL 
    DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 183 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 183

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2330) making appropriations for Agriculture, 
     Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2002, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. The amendment printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be 
     considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of 
     the Whole. Points of order against provisions in the bill, as 
     amended, for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are 
     waived. During consideration of the bill for further 
     amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the 
     Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in 
     the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such 
     further amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate 
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Hall), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 183 is an 
open rule providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 2330, the 
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2002.
  The rule provides 1 hour of general debate to be equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order against 
consideration of the bill. The rule further provides that the bill 
shall be read for amendment by paragraph, and that the amendment 
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying the rule 
shall be considered as adopted.
  The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill, 
as amended, for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, 
prohibiting unauthorized or legislative provisions in a general 
appropriations bill.
  Finally, the rule allows the chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their 
amendments in the Congressional Record, and provides one motion to 
recommit with or without instructions.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 2330 appropriates $74.2 billion in fiscal year 
2002 budget authority for agriculture and

[[Page H3739]]

 related programs through the Department of Agriculture and other 
agencies. This figure is $2.4 billion less than last year's 
appropriations, but $234 million more than the President's request.
  The bulk of the spending goes to food stamps, $22 billion; the Food 
and Drug Administration, $1.2 billion; child nutrition programs, $10.1 
billion; supplemental nutrition for Women, Infants and Children, $4.1 
billion; and the Federal Crop Insurance Program, $3 billion.
  In addition, this bill provides $1 billion for the Agriculture 
Research Service; $720 million for the Food Safety and Inspection 
Service; and $946 million for the Farm Service Agency.
  Madam Speaker, I am particularly pleased that the Committee on 
Appropriations has included $150 million for market loss payments for 
America's apple growers. As a representative of the number one apple-
producing district in the Nation, I am acutely aware of the devastating 
losses sustained by apple growers in the past year.
  In our area, for example, countless warehouses, packing houses and 
other apple-related businesses have either shut down, declared 
bankruptcy, or downsized dramatically. In county after county, growers 
find that it costs substantially more to produce a box of apples than 
the market will pay to buy it.
  And, unlike many farms that can easily switch crops when prices are 
down for one commodity, apple growers cannot simply pull up their 
orchards and grow something else for a few years until apple prices go 
back up again. In the face of unfair competition from China and other 
Asian nations, our growers have few tools with which to fight back.
  Apple growers are an unusually independent breed. They have suffered 
ups and downs of the market for years without asking for any kind of 
Federal assistance that has long been common to other types of 
commodities and farming. But never before have we suffered the kinds of 
losses we are experiencing right now. For that reason, I would like to 
commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and their colleagues on the Committee on 
Appropriations for recognizing the dire situation in apple country and 
for providing this much-needed assistance.
  Madam Speaker, this is a fair bill. It funds a number of high-
priority programs while cutting out wasteful, unnecessary and 
duplicative spending. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support both 
this open rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 2330.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for 
yielding me the customary time.
  Madam Speaker, this is an open rule. It has everything to do with the 
bill that makes appropriations for the Department of Agriculture and 
other related agencies for fiscal year 2002. As my colleague from 
Washington described, this rule provides for 1 hour of general debate 
to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  This allows germane amendments under the 5-minute rule. This is the 
normal amending process in the House. All Members, on both sides of the 
aisle, will have the opportunity to offer amendments that do not 
violate the rules for appropriations bills.
  Madam Speaker, this is generally a good bill that serves America's 
farmers as well as the poor and hungry in this land. And I commend the 
ranking Democrat, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), the chairman of the agriculture 
appropriations subcommittee, for their work. They have done a fine job 
working with funding levels that are too low for their important jobs.
  The bill funds child nutrition programs at a rate slightly higher 
than last year. It also increases funding for the food stamp program 
and gives a small boost to food banks. Funding for the WIC program, 
which feeds mothers and their children, is given a small increase over 
last year. Unfortunately, this increase is insufficient to meet the 
demand for this popular program. Monthly participation is exceeding the 
administration's projections, which will result in an estimated 100,000 
to 200,000 eligible people not being served.
  I am disappointed with the actions of the Committee on Rules which 
failed to make in order an amendment by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur) to fund the Global Food for Education Initiative, which is 
commonly known as the Global School Lunch Program.
  Here in this country, the school lunch program has been one of the 
most successful nutrition programs. A hungry child faces an extra 
challenge in school. This program promotes education by making sure 
that each day all children receive at least one nutritious meal.
  What works in the United States ought to work around the world. If we 
believe in education for children, we should promote this program. 
Also, this is a great help to our farmers, and it is being championed 
by former Senators George McGovern and Bob Dole.
  During consideration of this measure by the Rules Committee last 
night, I offered a motion to permit the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur) to offer her amendment to fund the Global School Lunch Program. 
The amendment was defeated on a straight party-line vote, with 
Democrats supporting the program and Republicans opposing it.
  The gentlewoman from Ohio's (Ms. Kaptur) amendment could not be 
accepted because it went over budget. However, at the same time, this 
same Committee on Rules approved an amendment that will add $150 
million over the budget to pay apple growers.
  The Rules Committee also denied a request by the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) to offer an amendment to increase food safety 
inspections. Food imports are increasing; yet funding for food 
inspectors is not adequate to keep pace. This amendment, which is 
important to our health and safety, should have been made in order.
  Madam Speaker, I do not agree with these priorities. I support the 
bill, but I cannot support the rule that turns down these amendments 
that I just talked about.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), the chairman of 
the subcommittee.
  Mr. BONILLA. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from yielding me 
this time, and I thank the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Ms. Kaptur), for her hard work. It has been a long, tough road for 
many of us; but in the end I think we can proudly say this is a 
bipartisan bill.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule, and in strong 
support of the bill that will follow. This is a good, bipartisan bill. 
I have worked strongly and consistently as chairman of this 
subcommittee to try to be inclusive, working closely with every Member 
on both sides of the aisle to try to address as many of the issues as 
we possibly could in putting this bill together.
  Our subcommittee heard many hours of testimony in previous days to 
get to this point. Many of the hours we spent listening to witnesses 
involved food safety, and that is something that both of us have worked 
on, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and I, to address these 
issues. There is great concern in the communities about the threats 
that exist from diseases that are now prevalent in other countries, 
primarily in Europe, that many of us are concerned about. Livestock 
producers, especially with the threat of foot-and-mouth disease and mad 
cow disease, are concerned, and we have addressed many of these 
concerns.
  We have worked in a bipartisan way to increase the number of 
inspectors for the Food and Drug Administration to give them more 
resources to do their job. All of the inspection accounts that are 
important to keep our food supply and our industry safe from threats 
from abroad we have addressed in a strong way, and I think I speak for 
every member of the subcommittee as well, who would agree.

                              {time}  1300

  It has been a tough road as well because we have received over 2,500 
individual requests for projects from individual Members around the 
country.

[[Page H3740]]

 We have done our best to try to take care of everyone that we possibly 
could.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) mentioned the reference to an 
amendment involving apples. We know that apple producers are facing a 
tremendous problem right now in trying to deal with some adverse 
conditions that they are faced with. This was an amendment presented by 
our good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), who has 
worked very hard on this issue; and this amendment has bipartisan 
support.
  Honestly, the Members know that we have tried to keep these 
authorizing issues and new programs off of our appropriations bill; but 
in this case, the committee worked its will. And we have this program 
in this bill. We know that there will be some contentious times in 
trying to deal with this as we move through this bill, but we expect to 
do that.
  All in all, I think we can all stand up and say we are proud of what 
we have accomplished here. The Committee on Rules has also worked very 
hard to deal with some of the problems in moving this bill to the 
floor. Again I want to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr.  
Hastings), the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), and all the 
members of the Committee on Rules for taking a lot of time and energy 
to get us to this point and hope that, in a bipartisan way, we can 
support the rule and the bill.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who has been a great proponent and 
advocate for hungry people all over the world and in her own country.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, I thank the esteemed ranking member for 
yielding time to me on this rule on our agriculture appropriation bill 
for the year 2002. Let me say that it has been a pleasure to work with 
our new chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla). We think we 
have perfected the bill as it has moved through subcommittee and full 
committee. Nonetheless, I must rise reluctantly to oppose this rule.
  We did go before the Committee on Rules to try to get the permission 
to offer amendments here on the floor today. We were refused. I wanted 
to go through a few of those amendments that we believe are worthy and 
would make this a much better bill.
  Probably one of the most important is the Global Food for Education 
initiative inspired by the work of Senators Bob Dole and George 
McGovern. It takes our school lunch program from this country and 
extends its concept abroad, using food to help over 9 million needy 
children in 38 countries to both promote their education and help them 
develop fully by having decent nutrition. We very much want to continue 
this program. We really believe that we allowed ourselves to become 
bottled up by artificial budget rules that prevented us from going on 
record to do what is right in this current bill. We would very much 
like to have this Global Food for Education program extended directly 
by Congress as a part of the regular order in this appropriation bill.
  The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) will probably be 
speaking against the rule soon on the question of food safety and 
improved food inspection. On the surface, the bill before us looks like 
it provides more money for those needs, but it almost only pays costs 
to staff to hold on to what we have. Can anyone here really accept the 
fact that the Food and Drug Administration can barely inspect 1 percent 
of the products coming across our borders every day? That means 99 
percent of imported product is not tested. Is that the gold standard of 
safety we hear so much about? And can we really believe that we have 
the information on the testing of practices like irradiation and 
enhanced food safety standards? No. In fact, in the subcommittee bill, 
we were able to get language on irradiation to do the kind of baseline 
studies that are necessary to assure irradiated food safety to 
consumers, but then those were stripped at the full committee level.
  In the area of biofuels funding, the Bush administration has made 
over 100 recommendations to try to help America move forward and become 
more energy independent, but not a single one of those recommendations 
asks the Secretary of Agriculture to do anything. Yet we know that 
ethanol and biofuels and fuels based on biomass are in our sustainable 
energy future and that the Department of Agriculture should not be 
exempt from this important national challenge.
  Finally, in the area of 4-H, we will be offering an amendment here on 
the floor to try to provide some of the initial funding for the 
measures that were passed here in the House this past week and in the 
Senate last week to celebrate the anniversary of 4-H. Let us put the 
money that is in the authorizing bill in this appropriation bill so 
that, in fact, there is no lapse of time.
  For all these reasons, I do oppose the rule and look forward to the 
debate on the bill as the afternoon proceeds. I thank the gentleman 
from Ohio for yielding me the time and the committee for allowing me 
this opportunity to speak against the rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Speaker, I wish to engage in a colloquy with the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the very distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would be pleased to enter into 
such colloquy with the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. NUSSLE. I thank the gentleman.
  It is my understanding that upon adoption of the rule, the 
appropriations bill will exceed the Subcommittee on Agriculture and 
Rural Development's 302(b) allocation by $150 million.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I would say to the gentleman that his 
understanding is correct. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), the 
chairman of the subcommittee, developed a bill that was within its 
302(b) allocation as set by the Committee on Appropriations. However, 
the bill as reported from the committee included an amendment, which I 
opposed, by the way. This amendment included additional spending that 
really should be mandatory and under the jurisdiction of the Committee 
on Agriculture. However, the Committee on Appropriations adopted this 
amendment, which would provide an additional $150 million in emergency 
funding to assist apple producers.
  Some Members expressed concern over the emergency designation, which 
in effect would increase spending above the level assumed by the budget 
resolution, so that designation will be eliminated from the bill by the 
rule before us at the present time. As a result of this action, the 
total funding in this bill will be $150 million over the 302(b) 
allocation. However, the Committee on Appropriations has not exceeded 
our 302(a) allocation as set by the Committee on the Budget.
  I want to assure the gentleman from Iowa and Members that it was not 
the intent and it is not the policy of the Committee on Appropriations 
to present a bill that is in excess of its allocation. It is simply the 
fact that after extensive discussions with the leadership, the 
Committee on Agriculture, and the Committee on the Budget, it was 
determined that the most expeditious way to resolve the matter and get 
this bill on the floor was the elimination of the emergency 
designation.
  Mr. NUSSLE. It is my further understanding that the Committee on 
Appropriations will increase the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation to 
the level provided by this bill and adjust the 302(b) allocations for 
other subcommittees by an offsetting amount.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, the gentleman's understanding is 
correct. It is the intent of the Committee on Appropriations to address 
this matter the next time it meets to consider revisions to the 
allocations by increasing the 302(b) allocation for this bill to a 
level equal to the amount this bill as passed by the House and to 
reduce other allocations for outstanding bills by the same amount.
  The committee does not intend a wholesale reprioritization of the 
budget to address this matter. We are also somewhat limited in our 
options because we have already passed three bills out of the House. It 
is not the intent of the Committee on Appropriations to reduce the 
302(b) allocations of bills previously passed by the House to

[[Page H3741]]

accommodate this spending in the agriculture bill.
  However, this does not mean the committee is precluded from a later 
reallocation as we work on these bills with the Senate during 
conference deliberations. Further, I would say to the gentleman from 
Iowa that it is my intention that the defense allocation will be 
preserved and maintained. Defense will be made whole. We will ensure 
that the allocations are adjusted to be in conformance with the Budget 
Act and that our bills are consistent with their allocations. I want to 
assure the gentleman that we will fully abide by the provisions of the 
Budget Act.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his 
clarification of this matter.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Madam Speaker, I think that overall there are many things to commend 
this bill, but I think there are a number of serious omissions which 
the House ought to deal with before we pass the bill on to the Senate. 
To express those concerns, I intend personally to vote against the rule 
although I will probably, unless something unforeseen happens, support 
the bill on final passage.
  First of all, I believe that we have something approaching a national 
crisis with respect to public confidence in the safety of the food that 
we import and that we consume. All of us have seen story after story 
about the outbreak of serious disease associated with consuming food. 
We have had over 5,000 Americans die last year from food borne illness.
  I saw a horror story a few days ago about the fact that a number of 
people in South Dakota and Minnesota had gotten deathly ill because 
they had consumed ground beef that contained ground-up animal thyroids. 
Those thyroids in the past had not been included in the food supply. 
But because we now have synthetic thyroid drugs, those animal thyroids 
are no longer used to the extent they were before to make thyroid 
medicine and so one meatpacking plant had simply ground the thyroid up 
with the rest of the animal. The result was that a good many people got 
deathly sick.
  We have seen a lot of other examples. If we take a look at what the 
FDA has to say about the adequacy of our inspection system for 
foodstuffs that come into the United States, for instance, we see that 
they inspect less than 1 percent of everything that is imported into 
this country. We believe that that constitutes a true crisis. I think 
that if we do not act on this crisis, it will hurt not only consumers 
but the very farmers that many of us represent, because farmers depend 
on a high level of consumer confidence in order to be able to sell 
their products.
  And while there is no question that our food supply is among the 
safest in the world, we still have a lot of problems that could be 
taken care of if we put the needs of food safety, for instance, ahead 
of the needs of the wealthiest 1 percent of the people in this country 
to get a $53,000 tax cut next year. We have some choices to make, and 
we are being prevented from making them by the choices that were 
already made by this House on the tax bill.
  We also have the question about whether or not WIC is being funded 
adequately. It certainly appears to me that the funding level in this 
bill is not adequate. Yet we are not, under the rule, going to be 
allowed to do anything about that.
  And then, thirdly, we have the effort that we tried to make in the 
full committee to take surplus food which we have in this country and 
make it available to children around the world. We have a program at 
USDA that did that last year; and we have been urged by Senator George 
McGovern and Senator Bob Dole, two people, who in the history of this 
Congress on a bipartisan basis have forgotten more about nutrition 
programs than most of us have ever learned, they both urge us to 
continue this program. USDA will not get off the dime and make up their 
mind one way or another. We tried to get that done as well in this bill 
and were blocked procedurally from doing so.

                              {time}  1315

  So for these reasons, it seems to me that we ought to vote down this 
rule and bring back a rule that will allow us to recognize a legitimate 
crisis with respect to public confidence in the safety of our food 
supply, and also allow us to address the other two issues that I have 
mentioned here today.
  So I would urge a no vote on the rule so that we can get a better 
rule under which to debate this otherwise fairly constructive bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), a member of the Subcommittee on 
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and 
Related Agencies.
  Mr. LATHAM. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Hastings) and very much appreciate him yielding me the time.
  Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the Committee on Rules 
for a fair, open rule and for their work. This will bring this bill to 
the floor in a manner that will open debate and bring out a lot of 
different points of view. I appreciate it very much.
  I also want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), for a great job that he has done and the 
ranking member, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), for all the 
work and cooperation that we have seen on both sides. The staff on this 
bill has done a tremendous job and their efforts are very much 
appreciated.
  This is a bipartisan bill and it is brought to the floor with, I 
think, agreement that the real needs of the agriculture community, of 
the people who are needing assistance for food, is met and that it is a 
bill that I think we can all support in the House.
  There are a couple items that I am very pleased that were included. 
One is funding for the National Animal Disease Center in Ames. This is 
in response to real concerns that we have with foot and mouth disease; 
mad cow disease; those types of problems that can be devastating to our 
livestock industry; and also for food safety for Americans. Also, they 
have increased the funding for the AgrAbility program, something that 
is very dear to me. What this program does is help people continue to 
farm even with disabilities, and the level of $4.6 million in this bill 
for this very important program is very much appreciated.
  This bill funds our research in a manner that agriculture is 
desperately in need of, new opportunities, new ways of adding value to 
our products. The way to do that is through research. So I am very 
pleased with the emphasis that the chairman has put on research.
  Also, a key element for the Department is food safety. I am very 
pleased that the FDA has increased funding of $115 million to a level 
of $1.18 billion. That is the largest increase in history. The Food 
Inspection Service has an increase of $25.4 million, raising that total 
to $720 million, also a very substantial increase to meet the needs 
that we have to provide not only the best quality food but the safest 
food anywhere to be found in the world.
  So, again, I ask Members to support this rule, support this bill. It 
is good for agriculture. It is good for all of our citizens.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. It 
busts the budget caps. There has been a double standard applied to some 
programs within this bill, and I was fully supportive of the assistance 
to apple growers in this country, because I think it is the right thing 
to do to help an industry out when they need that help.
  On the other hand, what they have done here with the Committee on 
Rules is they have made an exception for one emergency and have said no 
to all other emergencies that face American families. Whether it is 
family farmers facing the loss of their family farms, whether it is 
biodiesel fuels, Meals on Wheels, low-income nutrition assistance, we 
have emergencies that we need to address. We just cannot pick and 
choose which ones we want and which ones are politically advantageous.
  Specifically, this rule blocks an amendment that I brought to the 
committee to provide urgent emergency

[[Page H3742]]

 funds to address the food safety crisis. Americans are more likely to 
get sick from what they eat today than they were a half century ago, 
and the outbreak of food sickness is expected to go up by as much as 15 
percent over the next decade. Each year, some of my colleagues have 
mentioned this already, 5,000 Americans die from food-borne illnesses, 
76 million get ill and 325,000 are hospitalized. Just 2 days ago, the 
Excel Corporation recalled 190,000 pounds of ground beef and pork 
because of the possible contamination by deadly E. Coli in Kentucky, in 
Tennessee, in Georgia. Sara Lee pled guilty to selling tainted meat 
that was linked to a nationwide listeriosis in 1998 that killed 15 
people. Grocery stores are afraid that their fruit is unsafe to sell.
  Lest one thinks that these are things that I just made up, we have a 
number of headlines from recent news: A Big Recall of Meat Amid E. Coli 
Fears; Sara Lee Fined in Meat Recall Linked to 15 Deaths; USDA Blamed 
in Slaughter Violations; Grocers Demand Produce Inspections; 
Contaminated Food Makes Millions Ill Despite Advances.
  Experts like Joe Levitt from the FDA are telling the press that, 
quote, we do have a real problem. To address this problem, I asked the 
committee to allow an amendment to provide $213 million in emergency 
funds, $90 million to increase inspection of imported foods from 1 to 
10 percent, $73 million for over 600 new inspectors to inspect all 
high-risk and domestic firms twice a year and all other domestic firms 
every 2 years, and $50 million for the food safety and inspection 
service to ensure the implementation of new food safety procedures to 
strengthen our food safety efforts.
  The Food and Drug Administration inspects all food except meat, 
poultry, and eggs. They inspect fruit juices, vegetables, cheeses, and 
seafood. These foods are the sources of 85 percent of food poisoning; 
and last year, recalls of FDA-regulated products rose to 315, the most 
since the mid-1980s, and 36 percent above the average.
  FDA inspects less than 1 percent of imported food that comes into the 
United States, and this is a market that has expanded from 2.7 million 
items coming in to our country to 4.1 million items, and that increase 
has happened in just the last 3 years.
  In the domestic market, the FDA inspects high risk firms no more than 
once a year and other firms are inspected only once in 7 years.
  The FDA has only 400 people to inspect all domestic food, and we have 
30,000 domestic food producers and food plants in the United States. 
They have less than 120 people to inspect imported food. Food Safety 
and Inspection Service has held public hearings on a wide range of 
issues: procedures for imported food, risk management, emergency 
outbreaks. We know what has happened in Europe with foot and mouth. We 
know about the threat of mad cow. It is vital that the FSIS has the 
resources it needs. American families should be able to go out to 
dinner, to buy food, and not be fearful that they or their children or 
their families are going to be in jeopardy.
  In the 1920s, Upton Sinclair wrote in a novel, The Jungle, he 
highlighted the abuses of the meat packaging industry. It brought a 
wave of reform in this country. We need to move forward on food safety, 
not to move backward to the days that Sinclair wrote about. This is 
about providing the agency that was responsible for protecting our food 
supply, give them the resources to have the inspectors that they need 
in order that Americans will be safe.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Speaker, I rise to support the rule and to speak in 
favor of H.R. 2330, providing appropriations for agriculture and 
related agencies. As reported by the Committee on Appropriations, this 
bill is technically consistent with the budget resolution and complies 
with the Congressional Budget Act. As the chairman of the Committee on 
the Budget, I wish to report to my colleagues that H.R. 2330 provides 
$15.7 billion in budget authority and $15.97 billion in outlays for 
fiscal year 2002. The bill does not provide any advanced 
appropriations.
  As reported, the bill also designates $150 million in emergencies, 
which increased both the levels of the budget resolution and the caps 
by the same amount. It also rescinds $3.7 billion, but this rescission 
produces no savings in outlays. As reported by the Committee on 
Appropriations on June 27, the bill does exceed the Subcommittee on 
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug's 302(b) allocation. 
Therefore, it does not violate section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which 
prohibits the consideration of appropriation legislation that exceeds 
the reporting subcommittee's 302(b) allocation.
  Members may be aware that I am concerned and have been concerned that 
the reported bill designates $150 million as an emergency for the 
purpose that is already accommodated in the budget resolution. This 
designation had the effect of increasing the levels of the budget 
resolution and the statutory caps by the same amount. The budget 
resolution clearly anticipated the need for additional agricultural 
assistance by increasing the Committee on Agriculture's allocation by 
$5.5 billion in fiscal year 2001.
  Indeed, earlier this same week, the House passed a bill that provided 
that same $5.5 billion in agricultural emergency assistance. That bill 
provided $169 million for the producers of specialty crops. In 
addition, the budget resolution provided another $7.3 billion of 
agriculture spending in fiscal year 2002 and included a procedure that 
could increase the total to as much as $63 billion. The Committee on 
Agriculture is free to use that portion and allocation as it sees fit 
for specialty crops.
  While I continue to have concerns about the emergency designation, 
the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and I have agreed, and 
we just shared that colloquy on the floor a moment ago, that the 
designation would be stricken by this rule and that the bill would be 
protected from resulting points of order.
  Furthermore, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) agreed that the 
Committee on Appropriations would revise its 302(b) allocations and 
reflect the fact that the bill would be offset by other appropriation 
bills. It was further agreed that the offsets would not come out of the 
bills that have already passed the House or bring Defense below the 
levels of the President's budget submission. The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young) is a man of his word. He has done his best in bringing this 
bill to the floor, as has the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla).
  In view of the good faith comments of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young) and commitments in this regard, I urge Members not only to 
support the bill but to support the rule.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), my 
distinguished colleague and classmate.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Hastings) for yielding me the time.
  Madam Speaker, I want to pay my compliments to the chairman of the 
committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and his staff and 
also to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and the staff on the 
Democratic side for putting together a good bill. I think there is no 
doubt that every Member that is on the subcommittee, of which I am the 
newest Member, believes that this is a good bill. Even though there are 
some who believe that the rule did not allow for some consideration of 
opportunities to solve some problems, many of those problems were 
discussed in the subcommittee and many amendments were offered. As many 
amendments as people wanted to offer were able to be offered, thanks to 
the chairman. I know that the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Ms. Kaptur) offered many amendments, some of which were adopted, some 
of which were not. Other Members had the same opportunity.
  So this notion that this is not a good rule because some people do 
not have the opportunity, those opportunities were provided to the 
subcommittee Members, and there was a full debate on many of these 
issues. Although I am

[[Page H3743]]

a new member of the subcommittee, I am certainly not new to the issues 
of agriculture. During the last 6 years, and I have been a member of 
the agricultural authorization committee and I have worked very hard 
with many Members, including some who are in the Chamber today, on 
agricultural issues, in trying to solve agricultural problems.
  Agriculture is in a recession. This bill helps agriculture in solving 
many of the problems that we have with respect to the recession that 
currently exists.

                              {time}  1330

  A big piece of this bill has to do with research. I agree with the 
gentleman from Iowa when he says that research is about the future of 
agriculture. It is also about the future of how we get agriculture out 
of the recession that agriculture is currently in.
  I have an agriculture research lab in my hometown of Peoria. They do 
marvelous work. The people there are very professional chemists and 
professional people who do the work that really helps us plan for the 
future uses of commodities and other fruits and vegetables and 
specialty crops that we grow in this country.
  So the emphasis on research in this bill is extraordinary. The amount 
of money dedicated to research in this bill is extraordinary. It makes 
an awful lot of sense, I think, to pass the rule and certainly pass the 
bill. There will be some opportunities for some people to make 
modifications or offer amendments, and then there will be additional 
time, obviously later on, when there is a conference.
  But today I think is the day to pass the rule, pass this good bill, 
keep things moving, and really assist those in agriculture who need the 
kind of assistance and help and research funds that this bill provides.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield such 
time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), a 
colleague on the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington, 
my colleague on the Committee on Rules, for yielding me time.
  Madam Speaker, my colleagues understand what we are talking about 
today is the rule. That is what we are debating right now, about 
whether we are going to move forward on the rule, an opportunity to put 
this on the floor, an opportunity to vote on this and get the 
appropriations bill done before we go home.
  I think it is important to understand that what this rule provides 
for is an incredible amount of money for some very important projects, 
to some things that sustain America, to some things that we have, how 
we deal with people in our country.
  We should not go too far from understanding that this bill provides 
$22 billion for food stamps. This bill provides $1.2 billion for the 
Food and Drug Administration. They know how to administer their 
business. They know what they are doing, and $1.2 billion will cover 
that. Child nutrition programs, $10.1 billion. The Supplemental 
Nutritional Program for Women, Infants and Children, known as WIC, $4.1 
billion.
  What we are doing with this bill and with this rule is to make sure 
that the agriculture of this country is not only safe and the food they 
produce is reliable, but we are also trying to make sure that we look 
at the resources and assets that we have in this country and say that 
we believe that conservation programs are important; we think people 
who are engaged in agriculture are important.
  We are making sure that our Federal Crop Insurance Corporation is 
funded, $3 billion. We are trying to prepare ourselves to make sure 
that people who live in rural areas and who are in agriculture know 
that Washington will deal fairly with them.
  But we also recognize that part of the argument we are going to hear 
today is we are not spending enough money. Well, I might remind my 
colleagues that we can never spend enough money to make sure that some 
people in this body will always be happy, but that we do go back to the 
budget that we set in place earlier in the year, and that this program 
that we are doing for the 2002 agriculture appropriations act falls in 
line with what this body said it would do. Then, through the leadership 
of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), we have had an opportunity 
to craft through many discussions and through many votes a policy of 
this country that is good on a moving-forward basis.
  So I support what we are doing here today. This rule is important for 
us to continue the process, not only on this appropriations bill, but 
to make sure that we finish in time and move forward on the commitment 
that we have to the country, to make sure that the public policy of 
this Republican Congress and, yes, one that the President will sign, to 
make sure that people who are involved in agribusiness and consumers 
and, yes, women and children and people who are on food stamps, will 
make sure that the system is there and reliable and works properly.
  So I applaud the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) for his hard 
work, and our chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and 
also the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), a member of the 
Committee on Rules who has worked carefully to make sure that this rule 
is fair and open. Lastly, I would like to give accolades to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), who is our chairman, who has 
worked very diligently to make sure that the rule that was crafted not 
only exemplified what this body would be in favor of, but would also be 
something that people in his home State of California would be proud 
of.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I think this is a good rule. It is an open rule that 
we typically have for appropriations bills.
  As was mentioned earlier, there was some criticism by members of the 
Committee on Rules not allowing some amendments to be made in order. I 
think what the Committee on Rules really did was protect the product of 
the Committee on Appropriations.
  Yes, there were some waivers in this; but essentially the will of the 
Committee on Appropriations was such that they went through their 
process and added some issues to this bill that required waivers. We 
gave them, and protected the product that they desired.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground 
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum 
is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222, 
nays 194, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 207]

                               YEAS--222

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly

[[Page H3744]]


     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--194

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Borski
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Barton
     Bonior
     Boucher
     Burton
     Conyers
     Dingell
     Houghton
     Largent
     Meek (FL)
     Owens
     Platts
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Slaughter
     Smith (TX)
     Thomas
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1401

  Mrs. TAUSCHER, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. WAXMAN, and Mr. RUSH changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. MANZULLO, TAYLOR of North Carolina, and BALDACCI changed 
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained due to 
emergency dental work during rollcall vote No. 207. Had I been present, 
I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 207.

                          ____________________