[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.
____________________