Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 92 (Thursday, June 28, 2001)

[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 92 (Thursday, June 28, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H3772-H3784]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002

The Committee resumed its seating.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural
Services

For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services to
administer the laws enacted by Congress for the Farm Service
Agency, the Foreign Agricultural Service, the Risk Management
Agency, and the Commodity Credit Corporation, $611,000.

Farm Service Agency

salaries and expenses

(including transfers of funds)

For necessary expenses for carrying out the administration
and implementation of programs administered by the Farm
Service Agency, $945,993,000: Provided, That the Secretary is
authorized to use the services, facilities, and authorities
(but not the funds) of the Commodity Credit Corporation to
make program payments for all programs administered by the
Agency: Provided further, That other funds made available to
the Agency for authorized activities may be advanced to and
merged with this account: Provided further, That these funds
shall be available for employment pursuant to the second
sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7
U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $1,000,000 shall be available
for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109.

state mediation grants

For grants pursuant to section 502(b) of the Agricultural
Credit Act of 1987, as amended (7 U.S.C. 5101-5106),
$2,993,000.

dairy indemnity program

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses involved in making indemnity
payments to dairy farmers and manufacturers of dairy products
under a dairy indemnity program, $100,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That such program is
carried out by the Secretary in the same manner as the dairy
indemnity program described in the Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-387; 114
Stat. 1549A-12).

Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account

(including transfers of funds)

For gross obligations for the principal amount of direct
and guaranteed loans as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1928-1929, to
be available from funds in the Agricultural Credit Insurance
Fund, as follows: farm ownership loans, $1,128,000,000, of
which $1,000,000,000 shall be for guaranteed loans and
$128,000,000 shall be for direct loans; operating loans,
$2,600,000,000, of which $1,500,000,000 shall be for
unsubsidized guaranteed loans, $500,000,000 shall be for
subsidized guaranteed loans, and $600,000,000 shall be for
direct loans; Indian tribe land acquisition loans as
authorized by 25 U.S.C. 488, $2,000,000; for emergency
insured loans, $25,000,000 to meet the needs resulting from
natural disasters; and for boll weevil eradication program
loans as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1989, $100,000,000.
For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, including the
cost of modifying loans as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as follows: farm ownership
loans, $7,866,000, of which $4,500,000 shall be for
guaranteed loans and $3,366,000 shall be for direct loans;
operating loans, $174,030,000, of which $52,650,000 shall be
for unsubsidized guaranteed loans, $67,800,000 shall be for
subsidized guaranteed loans, and $53,580,000 shall be for
direct loans; Indian tribe land acquisition loans as
authorized by 25 U.S.C. 488, $118,000; and for emergency
insured loans, $3,363,000 to meet the needs resulting from
natural disasters.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $282,769,000, of
which $274,769,000 shall be transferred to and merged with
the appropriation for ``Farm Service Agency, Salaries and
Expenses''.
Funds appropriated by this Act to the Agricultural Credit
Insurance Program Account for farm ownership and operating
direct loans and guaranteed loans may be transferred among
these programs: Provided, That the Appropriations Committees
of both Houses of Congress are notified at least 15 days in
advance of any transfer.

Risk Management Agency

For administrative and operating expenses, as authorized by
the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7
U.S.C. 6933), $75,142,000: Provided, That not to exceed $700
shall be available for official reception and representation
expenses, as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1506(i).

CORPORATIONS

The following corporations and agencies are hereby
authorized to make expenditures,

[[Page H3773]]

within the limits of funds and borrowing authority available
to each such corporation or agency and in accord with law,
and to make contracts and commitments without regard to
fiscal year limitations as provided by section 104 of the
Government Corporation Control Act as may be necessary in
carrying out the programs set forth in the budget for the
current fiscal year for such corporation or agency, except as
hereinafter provided.

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund

For payments as authorized by section 516 of the Federal
Crop Insurance Act, such sums as may be necessary, to remain
available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b).

Commodity Credit Corporation Fund

reimbursement for net realized losses

For fiscal year 2002, such sums as may be necessary to
reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for net realized
losses sustained, but not previously reimbursed, pursuant to
section 2 of the Act of August 17, 1961 (15 U.S.C. 713a-11).

operations and maintenance for hazardous waste management

For fiscal year 2002, the Commodity Credit Corporation
shall not expend more than $5,000,000 for site investigation
and cleanup expenses, and operations and maintenance expenses
to comply with the requirement of section 107(g) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9607(g), and section 6001 of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6961.

TITLE II

CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment

For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment to
administer the laws enacted by the Congress for the Forest
Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service,
$736,000.

Natural Resources Conservation Service

conservation operations

For necessary expenses for carrying out the provisions of
the Act of April 27, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 590a-f), including
preparation of conservation plans and establishment of
measures to conserve soil and water (including farm
irrigation and land drainage and such special measures for
soil and water management as may be necessary to prevent
floods and the siltation of reservoirs and to control
agricultural related pollutants); operation of conservation
plant materials centers; classification and mapping of soil;
dissemination of information; acquisition of lands, water,
and interests therein for use in the plant materials program
by donation, exchange, or purchase at a nominal cost not to
exceed $100 pursuant to the Act of August 3, 1956 (7 U.S.C.
428a); purchase and erection or alteration or improvement of
permanent and temporary buildings; and operation and
maintenance of aircraft, $782,762,000, to remain available
until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b), of which not less than
$7,137,000 is for snow survey and water forecasting, and of
which not to exceed $30,500,000 is for technical assistance
activities in conjunction with the Conservation Reserve
Program authorized by subchapter B, chapter 1, title XII of
the Food Security Act of 1985, and of which not less than
$9,349,000 is for operation and establishment of the plant
materials centers, and of which not less than $20,000,000
shall be for the grazing lands conservation initiative:
Provided, That $8,500,000 of the funds authorized for
allotments or transfers under 15 U.S.C. 714i shall be
available for Conservation Reserve Program technical
assistance: Provided further, That appropriations hereunder
shall be available pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2250 for construction
and improvement of buildings and public improvements at plant
materials centers, except that the cost of alterations and
improvements to other buildings and other public improvements
shall not exceed $250,000: Provided further, That when
buildings or other structures are erected on non-Federal
land, that the right to use such land is obtained as provided
in 7 U.S.C. 2250a: Provided further, That this appropriation
shall be available for technical assistance and related
expenses to carry out programs authorized by section 202(c)
of title II of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act
of 1974 (43 U.S.C. 1592(c)): Provided further, That this
appropriation shall be available for employment pursuant to
the second sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of
1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $25,000 shall be
available for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided
further, That qualified local engineers may be temporarily
employed at per diem rates to perform the technical planning
work of the Service (16 U.S.C. 590e-2).

watershed surveys and planning

For necessary expenses to conduct research, investigation,
and surveys of watersheds of rivers and other waterways, and
for small watershed investigations and planning, in
accordance with the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention
Act approved August 4, 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1001-1009),
$11,030,000: Provided, That this appropriation shall be
available for employment pursuant to the second sentence of
section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225),
and not to exceed $110,000 shall be available for employment
under 5 U.S.C. 3109.

watershed and flood prevention operations

For necessary expenses to carry out preventive measures,
including but not limited to research, engineering
operations, methods of cultivation, the growing of
vegetation, rehabilitation of existing works and changes in
use of land, in accordance with the Watershed Protection and
Flood Prevention Act approved August 4, 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1001-
1005 and 1007-1009), the provisions of the Act of April 27,
1935 (16 U.S.C. 590a-f), and in accordance with the
provisions of laws relating to the activities of the
Department, $105,743,000, to remain available until expended
(7 U.S.C. 2209b) (of which up to $10,000,000 may be available
for the watersheds authorized under the Flood Control Act
approved June 22, 1936 (33 U.S.C. 701 and 16 U.S.C. 1006a)):
Provided, That not to exceed $45,514,000 of this
appropriation shall be available for technical assistance:
Provided further, That this appropriation shall be available
for employment pursuant to the second sentence of section
706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to
exceed $200,000 shall be available for employment under 5
U.S.C. 3109: Provided further, That not to exceed $1,000,000
of this appropriation is available to carry out the purposes
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-205),
including cooperative efforts as contemplated by that Act to
relocate endangered or threatened species to other suitable
habitats as may be necessary to expedite project
construction.

resource conservation and development

For necessary expenses in planning and carrying out
projects for resource conservation and development and for
sound land use pursuant to the provisions of section 32(e) of
title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (7 U.S.C.
1010-1011; 76 Stat. 607); the Act of April 27, 1935 (16
U.S.C. 590a-f); and the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 (16
U.S.C. 3451-3461), $48,361,000, to remain available until
expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b): Provided, That this appropriation
shall be available for employment pursuant to the second
sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7
U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $50,000 shall be available
for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109.

agricultural conservation program

(rescission of funds)

Of the funds appropriated for ``Agricultural Conservation
Program'' under Public Law 104-37, $45,000,000 is hereby
rescinded.

TITLE III

RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development

For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Under Secretary for Rural Development to administer programs
under the laws enacted by the Congress for the Rural Housing
Service, the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, and the
Rural Utilities Service of the Department of Agriculture,
$628,000.

rural community advancement program

(including transfers of funds)

For the cost of direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants,
as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1926, 1926a, 1926c, 1926d, and
1932, except for sections 381E-H, 381N, and 381O of the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, $767,465,000, to
remain available until expended, of which $34,503,000 shall
be for rural community programs described in section
381E(d)(1) of such Act; of which $658,994,000 shall be for
the rural utilities programs described in sections
381E(d)(2), 306C(a)(2), and 306D of such Act; and of which
$73,968,000 shall be for the rural business and cooperative
development programs described in sections 381E(d)(3) and
310B(f) of such Act: Provided, That of the total amount
appropriated in this account, $24,000,000 shall be for loans
and grants to benefit Federally Recognized Native American
Tribes, including grants for drinking water and waste
disposal systems pursuant to section 306C of such Act, of
which $4,000,000 shall be available for community facilities
grants to tribal colleges, as authorized by section
306(a)(19) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act, and of which $250,000 shall be available for a grant to
a qualified national organization to provide technical
assistance for rural transportation in order to promote
economic development: Provided further, That of the amount
appropriated for rural community programs, $6,000,000 shall
be available for a Rural Community Development Initiative:
Provided further, That such funds shall be used solely to
develop the capacity and ability of private, nonprofit
community-based housing and community development
organizations, low-income rural communities, and Federally
Recognized Native American tribes to undertake projects to
improve housing, community facilities, community and economic
development projects in rural areas: Provided further, That
such funds shall be made available to qualified private and
public intermediary organizations proposing to carry out a
program of financial and technical assistance: Provided
further, That such intermediary organizations shall provide
matching funds from other sources, including Federal funds
for related activities, in an amount not less than funds
provided: Provided further, That of the amount appropriated
for the rural business and cooperative development programs,
not to exceed $500,000 shall be made available for a grant to
a qualified national organization to provide technical
assistance for rural transportation in order to promote
economic development; and $2,000,000 shall be for grants to
Mississippi Delta Region counties: Provided further, That of
the amount appropriated for

[[Page H3774]]

rural utilities programs, not to exceed $20,000,000 shall be
for water and waste disposal systems to benefit the Colonias
along the United States/Mexico borders, including grants
pursuant to section 306C of such Act; not to exceed
$20,000,000 shall be for water and waste disposal systems for
rural and native villages in Alaska pursuant to section 306D
of such Act, of which one percent to administer the program
and to improve interagency coordination may be transferred to
and merged with the appropriation for ``Rural Development,
Salaries and Expenses''; not to exceed $16,215,000 shall be
for technical assistance grants for rural water and waste
systems pursuant to section 306(a)(14) of such Act; and not
to exceed $11,000,000 shall be for contracting with qualified
national organizations for a circuit rider program to provide
technical assistance for rural water systems: Provided
further, That of the total amount appropriated, not to exceed
$37,624,000 shall be available through June 30, 2002, for
authorized empowerment zones and enterprise communities and
communities designated by the Secretary of Agriculture as
Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones; of which $1,163,000
shall be for the rural community programs described in
section 381E(d)(1) of such Act, of which $27,431,000 shall be
for the rural utilities programs described in section
381E(d)(2) of such Act, and of which $9,030,000 shall be for
the rural business and cooperative development programs
described in section 381E(d)(3) of such Act: Provided
further, That any prior year balances for high cost energy
grants authorized by section 19 of the Rural Electrification
Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901(19)) shall be transferred to and
merged with the ``Rural Utilities Service, High Energy Costs
Grants'' account.

rural development salaries and expenses

(including transfers of funds)

For necessary expenses for carrying out the administration
and implementation of programs in the Rural Development
mission area, including activities with institutions
concerning the development and operation of agricultural
cooperatives; and for cooperative agreements; $134,733,000:
Provided, That this appropriation shall be available for
employment pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a)
of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed
$1,000,000 may be used for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109:
Provided further, That not more than $10,000 may be expended
to provide modest nonmonetary awards to non-USDA employees:
Provided further, That any balances available from prior
years for the Rural Utilities Service, Rural Housing Service,
and the Rural Business-Cooperative Service salaries and
expenses accounts shall be transferred to and merged with
this account.

Rural Housing Service

rural housing insurance fund program account

(including transfer of funds)

For gross obligations for the principal amount of direct
and guaranteed loans as authorized by title V of the Housing
Act of 1949, to be available from funds in the rural housing
insurance fund, as follows: $4,202,618,000 for loans to
section 502 borrowers, as determined by the Secretary, of
which $1,064,650,000 shall be for direct loans, and of which
$3,137,968,000 shall be for unsubsidized guaranteed loans;
$32,324,000 for section 504 housing repair loans;
$114,068,000 for section 515 rental housing; $99,770,000 for
section 538 guaranteed multi-family housing loans; $5,090,000
for section 524 site loans; $11,778,000 for credit sales of
acquired property, of which up to $1,778,000 may be for
multi-family credit sales; and $5,000,000 for section 523
self-help housing land development loans.
For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, including the
cost of modifying loans, as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as follows: section 502
loans, $180,274,000 of which $140,108,000 shall be for direct
loans, and of which $40,166,000 shall be for unsubsidized
guaranteed loans; section 504 housing repair loans,
$10,386,000; section 515 rental housing, $48,274,000; section
538 multi-family housing guaranteed loans, $3,921,000;
section 524 site loans, $28,000; multi-family credit sales of
acquired property, $750,000; and section 523 self-help
housing land development loans, $254,000: Provided, That of
the total amount appropriated in this paragraph, $11,656,000
shall be available through June 30, 2002, for authorized
empowerment zones and enterprise communities and communities
designated by the Secretary of Agriculture as Rural Economic
Area Partnership Zones.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $422,910,000,
which shall be transferred to and merged with the
appropriation for ``Rural Development, Salaries and
Expenses''.

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Clayton

Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mrs. Clayton:
In title III, in the item relating to ``Rural Housing
Insurance Fund Program Account'' add at the end the
following:
Of the amounts made available under this heading in chapter
1 of title II of Public Law 106-246 (114 Stat. 540) for gross
obligations for principal amount of direct loans authorized
by title V of the Housing Act of 1949 for section 515 rental
housing, the Secretary of Agriculture may use up to
$5,986,197 for rental assistance agreements described in the
item relating to ``Rental Assistance Program'' in such
chapter: Provided, That such amount is designated by the
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Control Act
of 1985, as amended.
In making available for occupancy dwelling units in housing
that is provided with funds made available under the heading
referred to in the preceding paragraph, the Secretary of
Agriculture may give preference to prospective tenants who
are residing in temporary housing provided by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency as a result of an emergency.

Mrs. CLAYTON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas reserves a point
of order.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to offer my
amendment at a later time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentlewoman want to withdraw her
amendment?
Mrs. CLAYTON. This is a housing amendment, and I thought it was
appropriate at this point, but if there is a question about
appropriateness of the government at this time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. CLAYTON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, just so we understand what is occurring
here. I just want to make sure that the gentlewoman from North Carolina
will have the opportunity to bring up her amendment at a later time,
even if it might be out-of-page order, and it may not be able to come
up later today, but maybe when we come back from the 4th of July.
Mr. Chairman, we just want to reserve her rights to bring this up and
work out whatever needs to be done with the majority.

{time} 1615

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield, we would
have no objection to that, and she would be allowed to do that.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Whitfield). Without objection, the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) withdraws her amendment
and, without prejudice, will be able to reoffer at an appropriate time.
There was no objection.
Mrs. CLAYTON. At a later time?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. At a later point in the reading, the
gentlewoman from North Carolina will be able to reoffer her amendment.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Do I need further instruction from the Chair? I just
want to make sure, have I reserved my right? Is my amendment protected?
All right.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman will be allowed to at a
later point in the reading to offer her amendment notwithstanding
having passed the appropriate point in the reading.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

rental assistance program

For rental assistance agreements entered into or renewed
pursuant to the authority under section 521(a)(2) or
agreements entered into in lieu of debt forgiveness or
payments for eligible households as authorized by section
502(c)(5)(D) of the Housing Act of 1949, $693,504,000; and,
in addition, such sums as may be necessary, as authorized by
section 521(c) of the Act, to liquidate debt incurred prior
to fiscal year 1992 to carry out the rental assistance
program under section 521(a)(2) of the Act: Provided, That of
this amount, not more than $5,900,000 shall be available for
debt forgiveness or payments for eligible households as
authorized by section 502(c)(5)(D) of the Act, and not to
exceed $10,000 per project for advances to nonprofit
organizations or public agencies to cover direct costs (other
than purchase price) incurred in purchasing projects pursuant
to section 502(c)(5)(C) of the Act: Provided further, That
agreements entered into or renewed during fiscal year 2002
shall be funded for a 5-year period, although the life of any
such agreement may be extended to fully utilize amounts
obligated.

mutual and self-help housing grants

For grants and contracts pursuant to section 523(b)(1)(A)
of the Housing Act of 1949 (42

[[Page H3775]]

U.S.C. 1490c), $33,925,000, to remain available until
expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b): Provided, That of the total amount
appropriated, $1,000,000 shall be available through June 30,
2002, for authorized empowerment zones and enterprise
communities and communities designated by the Secretary of
Agriculture as Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones.

rural housing assistance grants

For grants and contracts for very low-income housing
repair, supervisory and technical assistance, compensation
for construction defects, and rural housing preservation made
by the Rural Housing Service, as authorized by 42 U.S.C.
1474, 1479(c), 1490e, and 1490m, $38,914,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That of the total amount
appropriated, $1,200,000 shall be available through June 30,
2002, for authorized empowerment zones and enterprise
communities and communities designated by the Secretary of
Agriculture as Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones.

farm labor program account

For the cost of direct loans, grants, and contracts, as
authorized by 42 U.S.C. 1484 and 1486, $31,431,000, to remain
available until expended, for direct farm labor housing loans
and domestic farm labor housing grants and contracts.

Rural Business--Cooperative Service

rural development loan fund program account

(including transfer of funds)

For the principal amount of direct loans, as authorized by
the Rural Development Loan Fund (42 U.S.C. 9812(a)),
$38,171,000.
For the cost of direct loans, $16,494,000, as authorized by
the Rural Development Loan Fund (42 U.S.C. 9812(a)), of which
$1,724,000 shall be for Federally Recognized Native American
Tribes and of which $3,449,000 shall be for Mississippi Delta
Region counties (as defined by Public Law 100-460): Provided,
That such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans,
shall be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That these funds are
available to subsidize gross obligations for the principal
amount of direct loans of $38,171,000: Provided further, That
of the total amount appropriated, $2,730,000 shall be
available through June 30, 2002, for the cost of direct loans
for authorized empowerment zones and enterprise communities
and communities designated by the Secretary of Agriculture as
Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
direct loan programs, $3,761,000 shall be transferred to and
merged with the appropriation for ``Rural Development,
Salaries and Expenses''.

rural economic development loans program account

(including rescission of funds)

For the principal amount of direct loans, as authorized
under section 313 of the Rural Electrification Act, for the
purpose of promoting rural economic development and job
creation projects, $14,966,000.
For the cost of direct loans, including the cost of
modifying loans as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, $3,616,000.
Of the funds derived from interest on the cushion of credit
payments in fiscal year 2002, as authorized by section 313 of
the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, $3,616,000 shall not
be obligated and $3,616,000 are rescinded.

rural cooperative development grants

For rural cooperative development grants authorized under
section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932), $7,500,000, of which
$2,500,000 shall be available for cooperative agreements for
the appropriate technology transfer for rural areas program:
Provided, That not to exceed $1,497,000 of the total amount
appropriated shall be made available to cooperatives or
associations of cooperatives whose primary focus is to
provide assistance to small, minority producers.

rural empowerment zones and enterprise community grants

For grants in connection with a second round of empowerment
zones and enterprise communities $14,967,000, to remain
available until expended, for designated rural empowerment
zones and rural enterprise communities as authorized in the
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.

Rural Utilities Service

rural electrification and telecommunications loans program account

(including transfer of funds)

Insured loans pursuant to the authority of section 305 of
the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 935) shall be
made as follows: 5 percent rural electrification loans
$121,107,000; municipal rate rural electric loans,
$794,358,000; loans made pursuant to section 306 of that Act,
rural electric, $2,600,000,000; Treasury rate direct electric
loans, $500,000,000; and guaranteed electric loans,
$100,000,000; 5 percent rural telecommunications loans,
$74,827,000; cost of money rural telecommunications loans,
$300,000,000; and rural telecommunications loans,
$120,000,000.
For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, including the cost of
modifying loans, of direct and guaranteed loans authorized by
the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 935 and 936),
as follows: cost of rural electric loans, $3,689,000, and the
cost of telecommunication loans, $2,036,000: Provided, That
notwithstanding section 305(d)(2) of the Rural
Electrification Act of 1936, borrower interest rates may
exceed 7 percent per year.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $36,322,000,
which shall be transferred to and merged with the
appropriation for ``Rural Development, Salaries and
Expenses''.

rural telephone bank program account

(including transfer of funds)

The Rural Telephone Bank is hereby authorized to make such
expenditures, within the limits of funds available to such
corporation in accord with law, and to make such contracts
and commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as
provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control
Act, as may be necessary in carrying out its authorized
programs. During fiscal year 2002 and within the resources
and authority available, gross obligations for the principal
amount of direct loans shall be $174,615,000.
For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, including the cost of
modifying loans, of direct loans authorized by the Rural
Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 935), $2,584,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses, including audits,
necessary to carry out the loan programs, $3,107,000 which
shall be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for
``Rural Development, Salaries and Expenses''.

distance learning and telemedicine program

For the principle amount of direct distance learning and
telemedicine loans, $300,000,000; and for the principle
amount of broadband telecommunication loans, contingent upon
the enactment of authorizing legislation, $100,000,000.
For the cost of direct loans and grants, as authorized by 7
U.S.C. 950aaa et seq., $26,941,000, to remain available until
expended, to be available for loans and grants for
telemedicine and distance learning services in rural areas:
Provided, That, contingent upon the enactment of authorizing
legislation, $1,996,000 may be available for a loan and grant
program to finance broadband transmission and local dial-up
Internet service in areas that meet the definition of ``rural
area'' used for the Distance Learning and Telemedicine
Program authorized by 7 U.S.C. 950aaa: Provided further, That
the cost of direct loans shall be as defined in section 502
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

TITLE IV

DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services

For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services to
administer the laws enacted by the Congress for the Food and
Nutrition Service, $592,000.

Food and Nutrition Service

child nutrition programs

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses to carry out the National School
Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.), except section 21, and
the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.),
except sections 17 and 21; $10,088,746,000, to remain
available through September 30, 2003, of which $4,748,038,000
is hereby appropriated and $5,340,708,000 shall be derived by
transfer from funds available under section 32 of the Act of
August 24, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c): Provided, That except as
specifically provided under this heading, none of the funds
made available under this heading shall be used for studies
and evaluations: Provided further, That up to $4,507,000
shall be available for independent verification of school
food service claims: Provided further, That of the funds
provided under this heading, $2,000,000 shall be available
for new activities to enhance integrity in the National
School Lunch Program.

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Davis of California

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mrs. Davis of California:
In title IV under the heading ``child nutrition programs'',
insert before the period at the end the following: ``Provided
further, That the Secretary of Agriculture may not take into
account the availability of a basic allowance for housing for
members of the Armed Forces when determining the eligibility
of persons for free or reduced-price lunch programs''.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order. We have not
seen this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The point of order is reserved.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I realize this amendment will
most likely not be ruled in order, but I offer it to raise awareness to
a critical problem.
In an effort to leverage its limited quality-of-life resources, the
armed services are privatizing military family housing. I support this
effort. In fact, we have some wonderful projects online

[[Page H3776]]

in San Diego. But as you know, obviously there are unintended
consequences of a good program. I would like to point out two in
particular.
This is creating a loss of income to school districts, and it is
affecting the eligibility for free and reduced school lunch programs
for the children of military families.
Let me give my colleagues some background. When a family lives in a
military family housing community, they basically forfeit their basic
housing allowance. But when that community housing becomes privatized,
this basic allowance for housing is included on the servicemembers' pay
statement. That is called an LES. Servicemembers do not actually
receive this income, however. It is basically pass-through.
Unfortunately, under the Department of Agriculture rules, this amount
is included as income in determining eligibility for free and reduced
school lunches.
The Department of Defense adds the allowance to the pay statement to
assist them in accounting, but the servicemember is not getting any
additional pay for the family, and certainly not for food for their
children.
This could happen. Perhaps, on a Sunday, the military housing
community is owned and operated by the military. But on Monday, that
housing community is operated by a private company, still on the
Federal land, but the servicemember has never moved, but has less money
really in his pocket if his child does not become eligible for free and
reduced lunch. They had that eligibility before.
So families are losing some assistance, children are losing their
free lunches, and school districts are losing Federal funds. It is the
smaller school districts particularly that are especially affected by
this. So we need to take a look at this issue, and I think we need to
change the rules. This is no way, I believe, to treat the men and women
who sacrifice so much in service to our country. So what my amendment
would do would be to prevent the housing allowance from being used when
determining eligibility for child nutrition programs.
There is another issue that we are going to face as well. I hope that
we can increase the basic housing allowance for all servicemembers
regardless of where they live. I know in my community of San Diego,
people are paying far greater than they should out of pocket.
As we increase that need and keep pace with rising housing costs, we
need to be certain that it is indexed at the end of the day so that
there is still more money for the families to feed their children. We
do not want to cause them to lose this valuable assistance that they
receive, the children receive at school, if it looks as if their
incomes have increased when, in fact, we know they really have not.
So I asked the assistance of my colleagues on this issue and the
commitment of the chairman to work with me to resolve this issue.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla)
insist on his point of order?
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Chair if the gentlewoman
from California (Mrs. Davis) is going to withdraw her amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentlewoman from California intend
to withdraw her amendment?
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, yes. I hope that we can work
together on this, and I certainly will ask to withdraw my amendment.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Davis) and to the chairman of the subcommittee that I
do believe the gentlewoman has really brought up an issue that we never
have considered, never were asked to consider during our regular
hearings and so forth.
I think this does involve also the authorizing of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce since they have jurisdiction over the
school lunch program, the free and reduced lunch program, although we
have jurisdiction over the expenditures for that.
Knowing that some of our military personnel are extremely pressed,
even some eligible for food stamps when serving the Government of the
United States at points around the world, it would seem to me that we
should find a way to encourage the Department of Education, the
Department of Agriculture to treat our military personnel with the
respect that they deserve.
I want to compliment the gentlewoman for bringing this issue to the
attention of our subcommittee and pledge my own cooperation with her in
resolving this in the weeks and months ahead, and certainly also
encourage her to testify before the Committee on Education and the
Workforce as well as the authorizing Committee on Agriculture.
We here on the Committee on Appropriations will continue to work with
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis) as we move to conference
with the other body.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentlewoman from California (Mrs.
Davis) intend to withdraw her amendment?
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will do that. I know
that there are colleagues on the other side of the aisle as well who
have confronted this problem in their community, and I appreciate their
help and support on this as well.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. SCHROCK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to speak on
behalf of this amendment that was introduced by the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Davis). At a time when retention in the military is
down, we need to find as many ways as possible to support our sailors,
soldiers, airmen, marines and their families.
The Department of Agriculture's current policy of counting the basic
allowance for housing as part of income is unfair to the young men and
women of the military who have dedicated their lives in service to our
country.
Many military families, many new military families are finding it
difficult just to make ends meet. Many are living just above the
poverty level. The long hours, the months away from loved ones and low-
paying jobs for spouses is often the norm for these families. When
military communities introduced privatized housing to help military
bases save on operating costs, it, unfortunately, does not always save
money for the servicemembers.
When a member lives on base, they forfeit their basic allowance for
housing. When a member lives in a privatized community, the Department
of Defense adds the allowance to their pay statement, but this is money
they never see.
When the Department of Agriculture includes this amount as income, it
affects many families' eligibility for free or reduced school lunches.
Schoolchildren lose their free lunches, families lose their assistance,
and school districts lose Federal funds that receive this money to
assist for free and reduced school lunch programs.
At the Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek in Virginia Beach, they
were working with the Department of Housing Authority to plan for
privatized housing in Virginia Beach and Norfolk, which I represent. I
do not want to see what is happening in the district of the gentlewoman
from California (Mrs. Davis) happen to the military families in our
area.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I thank the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis) for introducing it.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children
(wic)

(including transfers of funds)

For necessary expenses to carry out the special
supplemental nutrition program as authorized by section 17 of
the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786),
$4,137,086,000, to remain available through September 30,
2003: Provided, That none of the funds made available under
this heading shall be used for studies and evaluations:
Provided further, That of the total amount available, the
Secretary may obligate up to $25,000,000 for the farmers'
market nutrition program and up to $15,000,000 for senior
farmers' market activities from any funds not needed to
maintain current caseload levels: Provided further, That
notwithstanding section 17(h)(10)(A) of such Act, up to
$10,000,000 shall be available

[[Page H3777]]

for the purposes specified in section 17(h)(10)(B), no less
than $6,000,000 of which shall be used for the development of
electronic benefit transfer systems: Provided further, That
none of the funds in this Act shall be available to pay
administrative expenses of WIC clinics except those that have
an announced policy of prohibiting smoking within the space
used to carry out the program: Provided further, That none of
the funds provided in this account shall be available for the
purchase of infant formula except in accordance with the cost
containment and competitive bidding requirements specified in
section 17 of such Act: Provided further, That none of the
funds provided shall be available for activities that are not
fully reimbursed by other Federal Government departments or
agencies unless authorized by section 17 of such Act.

food stamp program

For necessary expenses to carry out the Food Stamp Act (7
U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), $21,991,986,000, of which
$1,000,000,000 shall be placed in reserve for use only in
such amounts and at such times as may become necessary to
carry out program operations: Provided, That none of the
funds made available under this heading shall be used for
studies and evaluations: Provided further, That funds
provided herein shall be expended in accordance with section
16 of the Food Stamp Act: Provided further, That this
appropriation shall be subject to any work registration or
workfare requirements as may be required by law: Provided
further, That funds made available for Employment and
Training under this heading shall remain available until
expended, as authorized by section 16(h)(1) of the Food Stamp
Act: Provided further, That funds provided under this heading
may be used to procure food coupons necessary for program
operations in this or subsequent fiscal years until
electronic benefit transfer implementation is complete.

commodity assistance program

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses to carry out the commodity
supplemental food program as authorized by section 4(a) of
the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 (7 U.S.C.
612c note) and the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983,
$152,813,000, to remain available through September 30, 2003:
Provided, That none of these funds shall be available to
reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for commodities
donated to the program: Provided further, That of the total
amount available, the Secretary may obligate up to
$15,000,000 for senior farmers' market activities from any
funds not needed to maintain current caseload levels:
Provided further, That notwithstanding section 5(a)(2) of the
Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 (Public Law
93-86; 7 U.S.C. 612c note), $21,820,000 of this amount shall
be available for administrative expenses of the commodity
supplemental food program.

food donations programs

For necessary expenses to carry out section 4(a) of the
Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973; special
assistance for the nuclear affected islands as authorized by
section 103(h)(2) of the Compacts of Free Association Act of
1985, as amended; and section 311 of the Older Americans Act
of 1965, $150,749,000, to remain available through September
30, 2003.

food program administration

For necessary administrative expenses of the domestic food
programs funded under this Act, $126,656,000, of which
$5,000,000 shall be available only for simplifying
procedures, reducing overhead costs, tightening regulations,
improving food stamp benefit delivery, and assisting in the
prevention, identification, and prosecution of fraud and
other violations of law and of which not less than $4,500,000
shall be available to improve integrity in the Food Stamp and
Child Nutrition programs: Provided, That this appropriation
shall be available for employment pursuant to the second
sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7
U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $150,000 shall be available
for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109.

TITLE V

FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

Foreign Agricultural Service

salaries and expenses

(including transfers of funds)

For necessary expenses of the Foreign Agricultural Service,
including carrying out title VI of the Agricultural Act of
1954 (7 U.S.C. 1761-1768), market development activities
abroad, and for enabling the Secretary to coordinate and
integrate activities of the Department in connection with
foreign agricultural work, including not to exceed $158,000
for representation allowances and for expenses pursuant to
section 8 of the Act approved August 3, 1956 (7 U.S.C. 1766),
$122,631,000: Provided, That the Service may utilize advances
of funds, or reimburse this appropriation for expenditures
made on behalf of Federal agencies, public and private
organizations and institutions under agreements executed
pursuant to the agricultural food production assistance
programs (7 U.S.C. 1737) and the foreign assistance programs
of the United States Agency for International Development:
Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated in this
account may be used to pay the salaries and expenses of
personnel to disburse funds to any rice trade association
under the market access program or the foreign market
development program at any time when the applicable
international activity agreement for such program is not in
effect.
None of the funds in the foregoing paragraph shall be
available to promote the sale or export of tobacco or tobacco
products.

public law 480 program account

(including transfers of funds)

For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of agreements under the
Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954,
and the Food for Progress Act of 1985, including the cost of
modifying credit arrangements under said Acts, $122,600,000,
to remain available until expended.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
credit program of title I, Public Law 83-480, and the Food
for Progress Act of 1985, to the extent funds appropriated
for Public Law 83-480 are utilized, $2,013,000, of which
$1,033,000 may be transferred to and merged with the
appropriation for ``Foreign Agricultural Service, Salaries
and Expenses'', and of which $980,000 may be transferred to
and merged with the appropriation for ``Farm Service Agency,
Salaries and Expenses''.

public law 480 title i ocean freight differential grants

(including transfers of funds)

For expenses during the current fiscal year, not otherwise
recoverable, and unrecovered prior years' costs, including
interest thereon, under the Agricultural Trade Development
and Assistance Act of 1954, $20,277,000, to remain available
until expended, for ocean freight differential costs for the
shipment of agricultural commodities under title I of said
Act: Provided, That funds made available for the cost of
title I agreements and for title I ocean freight differential
may be used interchangeably between the two accounts with
prior notice to the Committees on Appropriations of both
Houses of Congress.

public law 480 grants--titles ii and iii

commodity credit corporation export loans program account

(including transfers of funds)

For administrative expenses to carry out the Commodity
Credit Corporation's export guarantee program, GSM 102 and
GSM 103, $4,021,000, to cover common overhead expenses as
permitted by section 11 of the Commodity Credit Corporation
Charter Act and in conformity with the Federal Credit Reform
Act of 1990, of which $3,224,000 may be transferred to and
merged with the appropriation for ``Foreign Agricultural
Service, Salaries and Expenses'', and of which $797,000 may
be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for
``Farm Service Agency, Salaries and Expenses''.

TITLE VI

RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Food and Drug Administration,
including hire and purchase of passenger motor vehicles; for
payment of space rental and related costs pursuant to Public
Law 92-313 for programs and activities of the Food and Drug
Administration which are included in this Act; for rental of
special purpose space in the District of Columbia or
elsewhere; and for miscellaneous and emergency expenses of
enforcement activities, authorized and approved by the
Secretary and to be accounted for solely on the Secretary's
certificate, not to exceed $25,000; $1,342,339,000, of which
not to exceed $161,716,000 to be derived from prescription
drug user fees authorized by 21 U.S.C. 379(h), including any
such fees assessed prior to the current fiscal year but
credited during the current year, in accordance with 21
U.S.C. 379h(g)(4), and shall be credited to this
appropriation and remain available until expended: Provided,
That of the total amount appropriated $6,000,000 for costs
related to occupancy of new facilities at White Oak,
Maryland, shall remain available until September 30, 2003.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio:
In title VI, in the item relating to ``DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES-Food and Drug Administration-salaries and
expenses'', insert before the period at the end of the first
paragraph the following:

: Provided further, That of the total amount appropriated,
$2,500,000 is available for the purpose of carrying out the
responsibilities of the Food and Drug Administration with
respect to abbreviated applications for the approval of new
drugs under section 505(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act, and $250,000 is available under section
903(d)(2)(D) of such Act for the purpose of

[[Page H3778]]

carrying out public information programs regarding drugs with
approved such applications, in addition to other allocations
for such purposes made from such total amount

Mr. BROWN of Ohio (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.

{time} 1630

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment be limited to 20 minutes and that the time be equally
divided.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Whitfield). The time equally divided
between the proponent and an opponent?
Mr. BONILLA. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Brown).
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes and 15
seconds.
Within the next 5 years, patents on brand-name drugs with combined
U.S. sales approaching $20 billion will expire. Given the tremendous
cost savings with generic competition, it has never been more important
to reduce unnecessary delays in FDA approval of generic drugs.
The amendment I am offering today, along with the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), and the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Pallone), would increase funding for the Office of Generic Drugs
by $2.5 million. Our amendment builds on the $1.5 million increase
already allocated to this office under the leadership of the chairman,
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), and the ranking member, the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
I am pleased the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) supports this
amendment. While I understand how difficult it is to allocate limited
FDA resources, this amendment will pay for itself many times over.
Additional dollars committed to the Office of Generic Drugs will
generate enormous returns for American consumers, for Federal and State
governments, and for employer-sponsored health plans.
Prescription drug spending increased by 18.8 percent last year,
accounting for half the increase in national health spending and a
third of the increase in employer-sponsored health coverage. Generic
drugs cost on average 40 to 80 percent less than their brand name
counterparts. Sometimes they are 90 percent cheaper.
To get a sense of the savings inherent in approving these drugs more
rapidly: brand-name drug companies receive 6 additional months of
market exclusivity when they conduct pediatric clinical trials. That 6
months, on the average, represents $695 million in lost consumer
savings each year. It takes 6 to 12 months, on average, to review a new
drug application. It takes 18 months, on average, to review a generic
drug application. Multiply that $695 million, Mr. Chairman, times the
full universe of generic drugs, and the 6-month difference means tens
of billions of dollars in lost savings.
There are 300 scientists on staff today to review generic drug
applications. There are more than 2,100 scientists on staff to review
new drug applications. By giving the Office of Generic Drugs the
resources it needs, we can make a tangible difference in easing the
prescription drug spending burden. Opportunities to reduce both public
and private spending on prescription drugs without sacrificing access
or quality are very hard to come by.
Our amendment provides an additional $250,000 to fully fund a
national campaign to raise public awareness about generic drugs.
Generic drugs are as safe and as effective as brand-name drugs; they
are just cheaper. But there is clearly an information gap when it comes
to generics. Eighty-three percent of Americans report no bias against
generic drugs, but only 54 percent fill prescriptions with the
generics. There is a misperception that as conditions become more
serious, the use of generic drugs becomes more risky. The greatest bias
against generic drugs exists when cost savings, unfortunately when cost
savings are potentially the greatest for serious conditions requiring
expensive long-term treatment.
If we can get generic drugs to market on a more timely basis and
encourage more widespread use of these products, the public and private
sector savings will quickly dwarf our investment. I ask the Members of
this Congress to support the amendment.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The bill that
the committee has presented to the House includes a very carefully
balanced recommendation for funding for the Food and Drug
Administration. The $39 million provided in this bill for generic drug
activities includes a 17 percent increase for generic drug review,
generous by any standard.
I should also note that the funding for generics includes the only
FDA program increase above the President's budget, which certainly
demonstrates our commitment to affordable, effective, and safe generic
drugs. So, again, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), who has fought for low-cost prescription
drugs for several years in this body.
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman
from Ohio for his leadership in this effort.
The American people, Mr. Chairman, are continuing to be robbed by the
brand-name prescription drug manufacturers in this country. The reason
that happens is because they have patent protection, they have trade
barriers to protect them, and they have limited access to generic
medicine. It is time that we do something about that. It is time that
we make reasonably priced prescription medicine available to the
American people. We know that they could be saving $20 billion a year
today if they had access to generic medicine that is not available to
them today.
What we are asking in this amendment is that we provide $2.5 million
to the FDA so they can have the ability to approve more generic
medicine to the American people that would be offered at a much more
reasonable price and create competition in the prescription medicine
market that we have to deal with today. Generic drugs cost, on the
average, 75 percent less than brand names.
As I said, we know that we can save the American people $20 billion a
year if we do this. It takes 6 to 12 months to review a new drug
application, but it takes 18 months today, because of FDA's limited
ability, to approve a generic drug application. This does not make any
sense that this would be the case.
So I urge the Members of this House to vote for this amendment and
support the effort of the gentleman from Ohio to provide the American
people with reasonably priced prescription medicine.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), who has been very involved in
health care issues, especially prescription drug and managed care
issues.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Brown amendment.
There is a need for statutory or legislative initiatives that allow
timely access and availability of generic drugs once the patent on a
brand-name drug expires. Brand-name companies have become proficient in
manipulating Hatch-Waxman law and aggressive campaigns to block or
delay generic alternatives from reaching the market.
One way of alleviating this problem is to provide more funding to the
FDA's Office of Generic Drugs. Currently, the agricultural
appropriation bill includes a $1.75 million increase in funding for
this office, and I would like to see an additional $2.5 million for the
Office of Generic Drugs. In addition, I would like to see an investment
of an additional $250,000 on top of the $250,000 already in the bill
for a national campaign to raise public awareness about the safety and
cost effectiveness of generics.
The tactics used by the brand-name industry to delay generic drugs
from

[[Page H3779]]

coming on the market are widespread and well known. By giving the FDA
Office of Generic Drugs the appropriate levels of funding, it will have
the resources to help move generic drugs to the market more quickly, to
run an education campaign, and to overall significantly bring down the
cost of prescription drugs.
We need more money for this office so we can reduce the cost of
prescription drugs, which is so important to our seniors and to so many
Americans. I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for bringing
this up, and I urge all my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak in favor of this
amendment. This is a very critical allocation of funds, primarily
because we are having such a difficult time in getting generic drugs to
the market.
Let me just point out that I am the sole person who is responsible
for my mother-in-law. I just wrote a check to Bill's Pharmacy in Cape
Girardeau, Missouri, $636 for four different medicines last month. The
month before that I wrote a check for $572. The month before that I
wrote a check for $835. And these are for brand-name drugs because it
is very difficult to get a generic equivalent to market. It is
atrocious.
Now, my mother-in-law has a supplemental Blue Cross/Blue Shield
policy. It only goes up to $1,500, so my colleagues can imagine how
quickly she uses that, because of the money that I have had to spend on
her behalf.
So, Mr. Chairman, I think this is an absolutely important and
critical amendment, and I hope that the chairman will allow it to be
considered.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from
Missouri.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my friend, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to stand in support the
bill. I want to thank both the chairman of the subcommittee and also
the ranking member because this amendment actually builds on the $1.5
million increase they have in the bill. This would help move generic
drugs to the market quicker. We are talking about $2.5 million. It
typically takes 6 to 12 months to review a new drug application, but 18
months for the generic drugs.
This will help all our people, but particularly our seniors, who take
more prescription drugs and spend billions every year on prescription
drugs. Let us see if we can get generics there to save our seniors some
dollars.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I thank him so very much for bringing up this important
amendment.
I think it is important for the membership to know this does not
involve any new money but merely a reallocation of funds within the
Food and Drug Administration itself. So this is a very, very worthy
amendment.
We have had to try to fight in this bill and the bill last year to
try to get more attention to the approval of generic drugs, which so
many Americans obviously need. They are a lot less expensive. I can
remember when Claude Pepper used to stand on this floor trying to get
generic drug incentives put into the law.
So I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio, as always, taking the
leadership on health questions and certainly trying to get medicine to
people who need it. In my neighborhood, there are many citizens who
make a choice between food and medicine every weekend when they shop at
the local supermarket. This will help families like them.
We need to get FDA working more quickly. And I am so happy that the
gentleman from the Committee on Energy and Commerce has brought this to
our attention and has given us additional drive to get additional
generic drugs approved. So I fully support his amendment. It is within
the budget resolution and within our allocation, and I would urge the
membership to support him.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Toledo.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, this amendment increases funding for the
Office of Generic Drugs, to speed the approval process for generic
drugs, to get them on the market more quickly, because generic drugs
save money; always 40 to 60 to 80 percent over the price of a name-
brand drug, sometimes as much as 90 percent. Consumers deserve access
to generic drugs as quickly as possible. It will save money for
America's consumers; it will save money for all levels of government
that provide prescription drugs to employees and to citizens of this
country; it will save money for employer health care plans.
Mr. Chairman, I ask for support of the Brown amendment on generics.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) will be
postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

: Provided further, That of the total amount appropriated,
$5,000,000 is available for the purpose of carrying out the
responsibilities of the Food and Drug Administration with
respect to antibiotic drugs, in addition to other allocations
for such purpose made from such total amount

Mr. BROWN of Ohio (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment be limited to 20 minutes and that the time be equally
divided.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would seek clarification. The time divided is
between the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Bonilla)?
Mr. BONILLA. The Chair is correct.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

{time} 1645

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment allocates funds to carry out the FDA's
antibiotic resistance plan. On January 18, 2001, the FDA, the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes of
Health unveiled an action plan developed by an interdepartmental task
force that provides the United States with a comprehensive approach to
combat the emerging threat of antimicrobial resistance. The plan
designated 13 near-term priorities to deal with the problem of
antibiotic resistance.
The introduction of antibiotics in the 1940s gave the medical
community an overwhelming advantage in its fight against infectious
diseases, against TB and pneumonia, against cholera and typhoid,
against many other long-time killers. But as bacteria have been exposed
to antibiotics, resistant strains have emerged as a real threat to the
efficacy of antibiotic drugs and to human health. The recent experience
of the

[[Page H3780]]

global medical community with tuberculosis is an excellent example of
what can happen when an infectious disease develops antibiotic-
resistant strains, and the threat that this poses to public health in
the United States and around the world.
Mr. Chairman, multidrug-resistant TB is as a result of antibiotic
overuse, incorrect or interrupted treatment, and an inadequate supply
of effective drugs. While outpatient treatment for standard TB costs a
few thousand dollars, treatment of multidrug-resistant TB, MDRTB, costs
as much as $250,000, and it may not be successful.
Mr. Chairman, we do not want to see this scenario of increased costs
and increased mortality repeated with other infectious diseases. The
first step in addressing the problem of antibiotic resistance is to
identify the true scope of the problem. We know that AR infections are
seen more often in emergency rooms. We know that antibiotic resistance
occurs wherever antibiotics are used, and we know that overuse and
misuse of antibiotics exacerbates the problems of antibiotic
resistance.
But we need to know which drugs are being affected most, and when,
how and why antibiotic drugs are being prescribed. We must educate the
American public on the proper use of antibiotics, and we must encourage
the development of new antimicrobial therapies.
The amendment I am proposing today does not seek to ban the use of
any antibiotics, it would simply appropriate the funds necessary to
implement those near-term priorities of the government's action plan
that would take place at FDA. These priorities were not set by me. They
were not set by my colleagues. They were not set by any special
interest groups. They were established by doctors and scientists and
public health officials from FDA, CDC, NIH and other Federal agencies.
The Committee on Appropriations has recommended a $126 million budget
increase for FDA over last year. This $5 million set aside would allow
FDA to begin to execute the portions of the antibiotic resistance
action plan within its responsibility and would leave the decision on
the sources of the offset to the Agency.
Mr. Chairman, I ask for Members to support the Brown amendment on
antibiotic resistance.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The bill that
the committee has presented to the House includes a very carefully
balanced recommendation for funding for the Food and Drug
Administration, including $27 million for antimicrobial resistance
activities. This is an increase of over 70 percent from just 2 years
ago, which clearly demonstrates our commitment in this area.
The gentleman's amendment proposes to increase funding for certain
purposes, but it makes no proposal on where the money should come from.
I would like to say that I am very happy that we were able to provide
significant increases for the FDA. It is vitally important for that
agency to have the resources to perform its public health mission. We
were able to provide them the following increases above last year's
level: $15 million to prevent BSE, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy,
which is commonly known as mad cow disease; $10 million to increase the
number of domestic and foreign inspections, and to expand import
coverage in all product areas; $10 million to reduce adverse events
related to medical products; $10 million to better protect volunteers
who participate in clinical research studies; $9 million to provide a
safer food supply; $1.75 million to improve the timeliness of generic
drug application review and to provide generic drug education; and full
funding of increased payroll costs for existing employees.
I want to stress how important this is. In the past, FDA and all
other agencies in this bill were forced to reduce the level of services
provided to the public in order to absorb payroll increases. This year
we want to be sure that does not happen. I am sure that we all want to
see that there is no slippage of activities at FDA involving research,
application review, inspections, and all of the other payroll-intensive
operations that are financed through our bill. We worked hard to find
these resources. I am glad we were able to do it, and I am sure FDA
will put them to good use.
Now here is my point. In the real world, when we go to conference
with the other body, the increase that the gentleman's amendment
proposes would have to come out of other increases that the committee
provided. So where should it come from? Should we reduce FDA's food
safety activities? We have heard a number of speeches today that told
us not to do that. Should we reduce protection for people participating
in clinical trials, or reduce resources for blood safety or BSE
prevention?
Mr. Chairman, I ask all Members to support the committee's
recommended increases in FDA. I oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I
ask for its defeat.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Brown-
Slaughter amendment. This amendment would set aside $5 million in the
FDA's budget for the purpose of implementing FDA's portion of the
public health action plan to combat antimicrobial resistance. As a
former microbiologist with a master's degree in public health, I am
profoundly concerned over the rising number of infections that do not
respond to the majority of antibiotics in our medical arsenal.
In my judgment, the resistance of bacterial infections to antibiotics
represents a major public health crisis in the Nation today. According
to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in some parts of the
country more than 40 percent of streptococcus pneumonae infections are
highly resistant to penicillin. Moreover, approximately 70 percent of
the bacterial infections acquired in a hospital setting are resistant
to at least one antimicrobial drug. As long ago as 1997, at least one
strain of staphylococcus developed resistance against the last and
strongest antibiotic available: vancomycin.
These facts have a real impact on patients. According to the WHO, 1
American dies every 38 minutes because of a drug-resistant infection.
When first-line drugs against these infections are not effective,
patients are sicker for longer periods of time. In the case of patients
with suppressed immune systems, or those recovering from surgery or
injury, a delay in effective treatment of infection can be fatal.
Children are particularly susceptible. In 1999, the CDC reported that
four otherwise healthy children had died of drug-resistant
staphylococcus aureus infections.
If we fail to slow the rise of resistance to these infections, we
could find ourselves returning to a day when common infections like
tuberculosis and salmonella could become untreatable, and potentially
fatal.
A wide range of factors are contributing to the rise of resistance of
antimicrobial agents. They include the overprescription of antibiotics,
viral infections which do not respond to antibiotics; the misuse of
antibiotics, such as the use of a newer, broad-range antibiotic when a
less recent version would be equally effective; and the decline in
simple sanitation measures, like effective hand-washing.
The various agencies responsible for the many aspects of the
antimicrobial resistance issue have come together and issued a
comprehensive plan of attack against this problem. ``A Public Health
Action Plan to Combat Antimicrobial Resistance'' was developed in
partnership by the FDA, the CDC, and the National Institutes of Health,
with input and assistance from the Agency for Health Care Research and
Quality, the Department of Agriculture, Department of Defense,
Department of Veterans Affairs, the Environmental Protection Agency,
the Health Care Financing Administration, and the Health Resources and
Services Administration.
This was an exhaustive and overarching effort to show the advance of
antimicrobial resistance. As one of the lead agencies in developing
this plan, the FDA has a crucial role to play in its implementation.
The Brown-Slaughter amendment would set aside $5 million for the FDA to
begin to stem

[[Page H3781]]

the rising tide of antimicrobial resistance. This modest investment has
the potential to save untold numbers of lives.
I urge my colleagues in the strongest possible terms to support the
Brown-Slaughter amendment. Antimicrobial resistance is a quiet crisis
growing in the United States, and we ignore it at our own risk.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time, and thank him for his leadership on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, how many times have Americans gone to a doctor, been
prescribed an antibiotic only to find out it did not work, that it was
not effective for them? This vignette of a patient taking medication,
hoping it is going to be of value to fight infection is something that
is repeated many times around the world. Yet we know for some reason
antibiotics are not effective because of certain resistance. What the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is doing is trying to get an additional
$5 million to fund components of the action plan to combat
antimicrobial resistance.
Mr. Chairman, this money will be money well spent because this is not
only a health problem in this country, this is a world health problem.
I thank the gentleman for his dedication.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who is the ranking member of the subcommittee.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Brown) for taking leadership on this important issue of
antimicrobial research.
Mr. Chairman, it has been amazing to me among families and friends,
staff members and their families back home, how many individuals go
into a hospital and are the victims of an infection. In spite of some
of the best knowledge we have with modern medicine, yet we find that
there is this antimicrobial resistance that in some ways is as a result
of the technologies that we brought on board in the 20th century.
As we now embark on the 21st century, this research to add funding to
help to expedite the action plan to combat antimicrobial resistance is
essential. We know that life transforms and that every action has an
equal and opposite reaction. I am sure that is the case, that
scientists note every day, whether we are talking about HIV-AIDS or
whether we are talking about some type of staphylococcus infection
which becomes resistant to antibiotics which have been brought on board
in years past.
We need to know which drugs are being affected most; how, when and
why antibiotic drugs are being prescribed. We must educate physicians
and the public on the proper use of antibiotics. I have been amazed at
people who have taken antibiotics and find their systems having to
readjust anywhere from 6 months to a year.
Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman. The amendment would
simply authorize funding for priorities already set by the health
agencies of this government. I urge my colleagues for a ``yes'' vote on
this important amendment on antimicrobial research. It provides $5
million to the FDA to expedite the carrying out of priority action
items designated under an adopted action plan.

{time} 1700

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
I ask my colleagues to speak to a physician or to a nurse or to a
hospital administrator or to a medical researcher about this problem of
antibiotic resistance. Every one of them will tell you that they know
of cases, they have seen cases, they have seen the damage done by cases
where antibiotic resistance is very real. Antibiotics are not as
effective as they were a year ago or 5 years ago or 10 years ago. They
also will tell you that we need action, we need to begin to recognize
the problem, we need to anticipate the problem of growing resistance to
antibiotics, and we need to do something about the problem.
This amendment does not ban any antibiotics. It simply carries out
the action plan that our government has suggested. I ask for support
for the Brown-Slaughter amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Brown) will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Engel

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Engel:
In title VI, in the item relating to ``DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES-Food and Drug Administration-salaries and
expenses'', insert before the period at the end of the first
paragraph the following:

: Provided further, That of the total amount appropriated,
$250,000 is available for the purpose of carrying out the
responsibilities of the Food and Drug Administration with
respect to food labeling within the meaning of section 403 of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, in addition to
other allocations for such purpose made from such total
amount

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment be limited to 30 minutes and that the time be equally
divided between the proponent and an opponent.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Engel) will be recognized for 15 minutes and the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. Latham) will be recognized for 15 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment sets aside $250,000, which in the totality
of this budget is very, very small, for the FDA to develop labeling
requirements indicating that no child slave labor was used in the
growing and harvesting of cocoa.
Forty-three percent of the world's cocoa beans come from small
scattered farms in the Ivory Coast. The beans are prized for their
quality and abundance. In the first 3 months of 2001, more than 47,300
tons of them were shipped to the United States to be processed by U.S.
cocoa processors.
There are more than 600,000 small farms and no corporate or
government agency in the Ivory Coast is monitoring them for slave
trade. The United Nations estimates that approximately 200,000 slaves
are working in various trades in West Africa and the State Department
has estimated that about 15,000 children between the ages of 9 and 12
have been sold into forced labor in northern Ivory Coast in recent
years. Let me repeat that. The State Department has estimated that
about 15,000 children between the ages of 9 and 12 have been sold into
forced labor in northern Ivory Coast in recent years.
On many of the farms, the fields are cleared and the crops are
harvested by boys between the ages of 12 and 16 who were sold or
tricked into slavery. Some are even as young as 9. These boys come from
neighboring countries, including Mali, Burkina Faso, Benin, and Togo
and do not speak the most common language used in the Ivory Coast,
French. They are children, who, out of respect, will do anything to
help their parents. The boys are uneducated, come from poor countries
and are wooed by offers of money, bicycles, and trade jobs.
``Locateurs'' offer them work as welders or carpenters, and they are
told falsely that they will be paid $170 a year. As soon as they accept
the offer, they are sold into slavery and are forced to clear the
fields and harvest the cocoa crop. They live on corn paste and bananas,
work 12 to 14 hours a day for no pay, suffer from whippings, are locked
up at night in small, windowless rooms, and are given cans to urinate
in.
One of these boys, Aly Diabate, was sold into slavery when he was
barely 4 feet tall. He said, ``Some of the bags were taller than me. It
took two people to put the bag on my head. And when you didn't hurry,
you were beaten. The beatings were a part of my life. Anytime they
loaded you with bags and you fell while carrying them, nobody

[[Page H3782]]

helped you. Instead, they beat you and beat you until you picked it up
again.''
Mr. Chairman, this must be stopped. Just like we cannot accept slave
labor in factories in Asia, we must not accept products being sold in
this country that are made by enslaved child labor. In 1999, former
President Clinton issued an executive order prohibiting Federal
agencies from purchasing products made by enslaved children. However,
cocoa products were not included on this list.
Americans spend $13 billion a year on chocolate. I love chocolate.
But most of them are ignorant of where the cocoa beans come from. And a
lot of the cocoa beans come from the Ivory Coast. We must change that.
This amendment provides funding for the FDA to develop a label
indicating that enslaved child labor was not used to harvest the cocoa
beans. That is all this does. We want to ensure that when people of
this country eat chocolate, they are not eating chocolate that was
processed by child slavery.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in opposition to the amendment. As with the prior two
amendments, we have fully funded FDA's budget request for this
activity. Additional money for food labeling will come from other vital
areas.
I ask rhetorically, from which priority would the gentleman prefer to
delete the $250,000? From blood safety, from developing methods to
detect food pathogens, or even generic drug review?
I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I hope that the Members will take this
amendment seriously, because it is in fact a very serious matter. It
is, in some measure, a result of this global trading pattern that we
have engaged in without really examining closely and understanding
fully the consequences of this system.
A recent report by our own State Department estimated that there are
currently some 15,000 children working on cocoa and similar plantations
in the Ivory Coast alone. That is the source of about 43 percent of the
cocoa that is imported into this country. I think that if people in
this country knew that they were buying products that were the result
of slave labor, particularly the labor of children as young as 8 or 9
years old, they would not buy it. And I think that this amendment which
proposes a simple labeling mechanism to indicate where this cocoa is
coming from and the slave conditions under which it is being farmed and
harvested is a good amendment and it ought to be adopted.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member on the agriculture subcommittee.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank my esteemed colleague the gentleman
from New York for yielding me this time and rise in support of his
amendment which is a very straightforward and simple amendment to ask
FDA to engage itself in the proper labeling of goods that come into
this country. In the area of cocoa beans and chocolate, I think we do
not often think of where a product's ingredients come from.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record an article that was published
in the St. Paul Pioneer Press on June 24 of this year that talks about
the cocoa beans that come here to America blended into our product from
places like the Ivory Coast.

[From the St. Paul Pioneer Press, June 24, 2001]

Daloa, Ivory Coast

There may be a hidden ingredient in the chocolate cake you
baked, the candy bars your children sold for their school
fund-raiser or that fudge ripple ice cream cone you enjoyed
on Saturday afternoon. Slave labor. Forty-three percent of
the world's cocoa beans, the raw material in chocolate, come
from small, scattered farms in the poor West African country
of Ivory Coast. And on some of the farms, the hot, hard work
of clearing the fields and harvesting the crop is done by
boys who were sold or tricked into slavery. Most of them are
12 to 16 years old. Some are as young as 9. The slaves live
on corn paste and bananas. Some are whipped, beaten and
broken like horses to harvest the almond-size beans.
The State Department's human rights report last year
concluded that some 15,000 children ages 9 to 12 have been
sold into forced labor on cotton, coffee and cocoa
plantations in northern Ivory Coast in recent years.
Aly Diabate was almost 12 when a slave trader promised him
a bicycle and $150 a year to help support his poor parents in
Mali. He worked for a year and a half for a cocoa farmer who
is known as ``Le Gros'' (``The Big Man'') but he said his
only rewards were the rare days when Le Gros' overseers or
older slaves didn't flog him with a bicycle chain or branches
from a cacao tree.
Cocoa beans come from pods on the cacao tree. To get the
400 or so beans it takes to make a pound of chocolate, the
boys who work on Ivory Coast's cocoa farms cut pods from the
trees, slice them open, scoop out the beans, spread them in
baskets or on mats and cover them to ferment. They they
uncover the beans, put them in the sun to dry, bag them and
load them onto trucks to begin the long journey to America or
Europe.
Aly said he doesn't know what the beans from the cacao tree
taste like after they've been processed and blended with
sugar, milk and other ingredients. That happens far away from
the farm where he worked, in places such as Hershey, Pa.,
Milwaukee and San Francisco.
``I don't know what chocolate is,'' said Aly. The chocolate
chain Americans spend $13 billion a year on chocolate, but
most of them are as ignorant of where it comes from as the
boys who harvest cocoa beans are about where their beans go.
More cocoa beans come from Ivory Coast than from anyplace
else in the world. The country's beans are prized for their
quality and abundance, and in the first three months of this
year, more than 47,300 tons of them were shipped to the
United States through Philadelphia and Brooklyn, N.Y.,
according to the Port Import Export Reporting Service. At
other times of the year, Ivory Coast cocoa beans are
delivered to Camden, N.J., Norfolk, Va., and San Francisco.
From the ports, the beans are shipped to cocoa processors.
America's biggest are ADM Cocoa in Milwaukee, a subsidiary of
Decatur, Ill.-based Archer Daniels Midland; Barry Callebaut,
which has its headquarters in Zurich, Switzerland;
Minneapolis-based Cargill; and Nestle USA of Glendale,
Calif., a subsidiary of the Swiss food giant.
But by the time the beans reach the processors, those
picked by slaves and those harvested by free field hands have
been jumbled together in warehouses, ships, trucks and rail
cars. By the time they reach consumers in America or Europe,
free beans and slave beans are so thoroughly blended that
there is no way to know which chocolate products taste of
slavery and which do not.
Even the Chocolate Manufacturers Association, a trade group
for American chocolate makers, acknowledges that slaves are
harvesting cocoa on some Ivory Coast farms.
And a 1998 report from UNICEF, the United Nations
Children's Fund, concluded that some Ivory Coast farmers use
enslaved children, many of them from the poorer neighboring
countries of Mali, Burkina Faso, Benin and Togo. A report by
the Geneva, Switzerland-based International Labor
Organization, released June 15, found that trafficking in
children is widespread in West Africa.

some of the bags were taller than me

Aly Diabate and 18 other boys labored on a 494-acre farm,
very large by Ivory Coast standards, in the southwestern part
of the country. Their days began when the sun rose, which at
this time of year in Ivory Coast is a few minutes after 6
a.m. They finished work about 6:30 in the evening, just
before nightfall, trudging home to a dinner of burned
bananas. A treat would be yams seasoned with saltwater
``gravy.''
After dinner, the boys were ordered into a 24-by-20-foot
room, where they slept on wooden planks. The window was
covered with hardened mud except for a baseball-size hole
to let some air in. ``Once we entered the room, nobody was
allowed to go out,'' said Mamadou Traore, a thin, frail
youth with serious brown eyes who is 19 now. ``Le Gros
gave us cans to urinate. He locked the door and kept the
key.''
``We didn't cry, we didn't scream,'' said Aly. ``We though
we had been sold, but we weren't sure.'' The boys became sure
one day when Le Gros walked up to Mamadou and ordered him to
work harder. ``I bought each of you for 25,000 francs''
(about $35), the farmer said, according to Mamadou. ``So you
have to work harder to reimburse me.''
Aly was barely 4 feet tall when he was sold into slavery,
and he had a hard time carrying the heavy bags of cocoa
beans. ``Some of the bags were taller than me,'' he said.
``It took two people to put the bag on my head. And when you
didn't hurry, you were beaten.'' You can still see the faint
scars on his back, right shoulder and left arm. ``They said
he wasn't working very hard,'' said Mamadou.
``The beatings were a part of my life,'' Aly said.
``Anytime they loaded you with bags and you fell while
carrying them, nobody helped you. Instead, they beat you and
beat you until you picked it up again.
Le Gros, whose name is Lenikpo Yeo, denied that he paid for
the boys who worked for him, although Ivory Coast farmers
often

[[Page H3783]]

pay a ``finder's fee'' to someone who delivers workers to
them. He also denied that the boys were underfed, locked up
at night or forced to work more than 12 hours a day without
breaks. He said they were treated well, and that he paid for
their medical treatment. ``When I go hunting, when I get a
kill, I divide it in half--one for my family and the other
for them. Even if I kill a gazelle, the workers come and
share it.''
He denied beating any of the boys. ``I've never, ever laid
hands on any one of my workers,'' Le Gros said. ``Maybe I
called them bad words if I was angry. That's the worst I
did.'' Le Gros said a Malian overseer beat one boy who had
run away, but he said he himself did not order any beatings.

a boy escapes

One day early last year, a boy named Oumar Kone was caught
trying to escape. One of Le Gros' overseers beat him, said
the other boys and local authorities. A few days later, Oumar
ran away again, and this time he escaped. He told elders in
the local Malian immigrant community what was happening on Le
Gros' farm. They called Abdoulaye Macko, who was then the
Malian consul general in Bouake, a town north of Daloa, in
the heart of Ivory Coasts's cocoa- and coffee-growing region.
Macko went to the farm with several police officers, and he
found the 19 boys and young men there. Aly, the youngest, was
13. The oldest was 21.
``They were tired, slim, they were not smiling.'' Macko
said. ``Except one child was not there. This one, his face
showed what was happening. He was sick; he had (excrement) in
his pants. He was lying on the ground, covered with cacao
leaves because they were sure he was dying. He was almost
dead. . . . He had been severely beaten.''
According to medical records, other boys had healed scars
as well as open, infected wounds all over their bodies.
Police freed the boys, and a few days later the Malian
consulate in Bouake sent them all home to their villages in
Mali. The sick boy was treated at a local hospital, and then
he was sent home, too.
Le Gros was charged with assault against children and
suppressing the liberty of people. The latter crime carries a
five- to 10-year prison sentence and a hefty fine, said
Daleba Rouba, attorney general for the region. ``In Ivorian
law, and adult who orders a minor to hit and hurt somebody is
automatically responsible as if he has committed the act,''
said Rouba. ``Whether or not Le Gros did the beatings himself
or ordered somebody, he is liable.'' Le Gros spent 24 days in
jail, and today he is a free man pending a court hearing that
is scheduled for Thursday.
He said the case against Le Gros is weak because the
witnesses against him have all been sent back to Mali. ``If
the Malian authorizes are willing to cooperate, if they can
bring two or three of the children back as witnesses, my case
will be stronger,'' Rouba said. Mamadou Diarra, the Malian
consul general in Bouake, said he would look into the matter.

official responses

Child trafficking experts say inadequate legislation,
ignorance of the law, poor law enforcement, porous borders,
police corruption and a shortage of resources help perpetuate
the problem of child slavery in Ivory Coast. Only 12
convicted slave traders are serving time in Ivorian prisons.
Another eight, convicted in absentia, are on the lam.
Ivorian officials have found scores of enslaved children
from Mali and Burkina Faso and sent them home, and they have
asked the International Labor Organization, a global workers'
rights agency, to help them conduct a child-labor survey
that's expected to be completed this year. But they continue
to blame the problem on immigrant farmers from Mali and on
world cocoa prices that have fallen almost 24 percent since
1996, from 67 cents a pound to 51 cents, forcing impoverished
farmers to use the cheapest labor they can find.
Ivory Coast Agriculture Minister Alfonse Douaty calls child
slavery a marginal ``clandestine phenomenon'' that exists on
only a handful of the country's more than 600,000 cocoa and
coffee farms. ``Those who do this are hidden, well hidden,''
said Douaty. He said his government is clamping down on child
traffickers by beefing up border patrols and law enforcement,
and running education campaigns to boost awareness of anti-
slavery laws and efforts.
Douaty said child labor is Ivory Coast should not be called
slavery, because the word conjures up images of chains and
whips. He prefers the term ``indentured labor.''
Ivory Coast authorities ordered Le Gros to pay Aly and the
other boys a total of 4.3 million African Financial Community
francs (about $6,150) for their time as indentured laborers.
Aly got 125,000 francs (about $180) for the 18 months he
worked on the cocoa farm.
Aly bought himself the very thing the trader who enslaved
him promised: a bicycle. It has a light, a yellow horn and
colorful bottle caps in the spokes. he rides it everywhere.

I cannot read the entire article, but I will just read a few
sentences, where it indicates 43 percent of the world's cocoa beans
come from small scattered farms in poor West African countries like
Ivory Coast where harvesting of the crop is done by boys who were sold
or tricked into slavery. They talk about 15,000 children ages 9 to 12
sold into forced labor and that it takes 400 or so beans to make one
pound of chocolate. The boys who pick these beans do not know what
chocolate tastes like because they never have a chance to eat the final
product.
The beans that they harvest go to places like Hershey, Pennsylvania;
Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and San Francisco. America's biggest users of
these beans are ADM Cocoa in Milwaukee, a subsidiary of Illinois-based
Archer Daniels Midland; Barry Callebaut, which has its headquarters in
Zurich, Switzerland; Minneapolis-based Cargill; and Nestle USA of
Glendale, California, a subsidiary of the Swiss food giant.
It talks about these boys being beaten and held, being tired, slim
with no smiles, and many boys having healed scars as well as open
infected wounds all over their bodies. It talks about the reasons that
there is no law enforcement in the countries which are the suppliers.
And it talks about the amount of money being made by the firms that use
this kind of indentured servitude.
I think $250,000 out of a multibillion-dollar budget is almost
nothing to ask to have proper labeling of a product. If we can have
happy faces on carpets that come from the Indian subcontinent, we can
certainly have proper labeling of chocolate products that come into
this country from places like Ivory Coast. I really want to thank the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), who is a member of the Committee
on International Relations, for bringing this issue to us.
It is always difficult for us to get labeling legislation passed by
this subcommittee and full committee, but, my goodness, do we not have
a moral responsibility to do this? It is within budget, what he is
asking to do. It is asking FDA to meet not only its scientific
responsibilities to this country but its moral responsibilities.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Engel amendment and
commend the gentleman for bringing this again to the House floor so the
American people can understand what is going on.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I think that the gentlewoman from Ohio made two very, very good
points at the end. Throughout her speech she made good points, but I
want to raise two that she made at the end. This is only $250,000. It
is a very, very small amount, and such a small amount to ensure that
the cocoa and the chocolate in this country has not come to be by slave
labor of children. I think that is a very, very small price to pay.
There is a moral responsibility as the gentlewoman points out, a
moral responsibility for us not to allow slavery, child slavery, in the
21st century. This is a small amount of money, it is in the budget, it
will not do any harm whatsoever; and I think that it will certainly
bring us to the point that this Congress can look with pride and say
that we are making an attempt to stop something that we thought did not
exist anymore and only now are we being made aware of the fact that
slavery is continuing to rear its ugly head in the year 2001.
I want to just again urge my colleagues to support this. This should
have bipartisan support because again we are talking about children and
we are talking about slavery. I do not think the American people would
want to knowingly eat chocolate or cocoa that was harvested by children
who have been tricked into slavery.

{time} 1715

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Engel) will be postponed.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Isakson) having assumed the chair, Mr.

[[Page H3784]]

Bass, Chairman pro tempore of the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under
consideration the bill (H.R. 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, had come to no resolution thereon.

____________________