[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 103 (Monday, July 14, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H6609-H6655]
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, 2004
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the
consideration of the bill (H.R. 2673) making appropriations for
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for
other purposes; and pending that motion, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that general debate be confined to the bill, and be limited to
not to exceed 1 hour, the time to be equally divided and controlled by
the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and myself.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla).
The motion was agreed to.
{time} 1205
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 2673, with Mr. Dreier in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
By unanimous consent, the first reading of the bill was dispensed
with.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the unanimous consent agreement, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur)
each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla).
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. BONILLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring before the House
today the fiscal year 2004 appropriations bill for Agriculture, Rural
Development, the Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies.
My goal this year has been to produce a bipartisan bill, and I
believe we have done a good job in reaching that goal.
The Subcommittee began work on this bill with the submission of the
President's Budget on February 3rd. We had ten public hearings
beginning on February 26th, and we completed our hearings on March
20th. The transcripts of these hearings, the Administration's official
statements, the detailed budget requests, several thousand questions
for the record and the statements of Members and the public are all
contained in eight hearing volumes.
The Subcommittee and full Committee marked up the bill on June 17th
and June 25th, respectively.
We have tried very hard to accommodate the requests of Members, and
to provide increases for critical programs. We received more than 2,380
individual requests for specific spending, from almost every member of
the House. Reading all of the mail I received, I can confirm to you
that the interest in this bill is completely bipartisan. However, I
would point out that my own support for a member's needs is dependent
on that member's support of the Committee in general, and of this bill
in particular.
This bill does have very limited increases over fiscal year 2003, or
over the budget request, for programs that have always enjoyed strong
bipartisan support. Those increases include:
Agricultural Research Service, $39 million above the request.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, $38 million above last
year, and $31 million above the request.
Food Safety and Inspection Service, $30 million above last year.
Farm Service Agency, $33 million above last year.
Natural Resources Conservation Service, $23 million over last year.
Rural Community Advancement Program, $223 million above the request.
Food and Drug Administration, $14 million over last year.
Mr. Chairman, we all refer to this bill as an agriculture bill, but
it does far more than assisting basic agriculture. It also supports
human nutrition, the environment, and food, drug and medical safety.
This is a bill that will deliver benefits to every one of our
constituents every day, no matter what kind of district they represent.
I would say to all Members that they can support this bill and tell
all of their constituents that they voted to improve their lives while
maintaining fiscal responsibility.
The bill is a bipartisan product with a lot of hard work and input
from both sides of the aisle. I would like to thank the gentleman from
Florida (Chairman Young), and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey),
who serves as the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the
Committee on Appropriations. I would also like to thank all my
subcommittee colleagues: the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh); the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston); the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Nethercutt); the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham); the gentlewoman
from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson); the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode);
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood); the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro); the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey);
the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr); and the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Boyd).
In particular, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Kaptur), the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, for all
her good work on this bill this year and the years in the past.
Mr. Chairman I would like to include at this point in the Record
tabular material relating to the bill.
[[Page H6610]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JY03.001
[[Page H6611]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JY03.002
[[Page H6612]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JY03.003
[[Page H6613]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JY03.004
[[Page H6614]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JY03.005
[[Page H6615]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JY03.006
[[Page H6616]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JY03.007
[[Page H6617]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JY03.008
[[Page H6618]]
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, at a time of recession, rising unemployment in our
country, the currency fluctuations that are affecting our markets
internationally and great dependency on the Federal Government by our
farm sector for economic survival, this bill fails to meet the needs of
today's economy, including in rural America, for a countercyclical
boost.
It has been a great pleasure working with our chairman, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), in trying to do the best with the allocation
that we were afforded by the full committee; but it is very important
as we proceed today to place on the record not only the condition of
rural America but how this country and the government of this country
is responding to it.
The allocation that we received forced our committee to produce a
bill that is nearly $1 billion under last year's level, indeed $872
million. This situation exists partly because of the fault of the
administration which submitted a request to us that did not provide
support in many critical areas. In part, it is the fault of this
Republican Congress which adopted a budget resolution that did not
recognize the vital role that agriculture plays as a pillar of our
economy. In fact, the allocation, as I said, for this bill is well
below the administration's request as well as last year's level.
As a result, the bill underinvests in rural America. Surely in value-
added production, where the future lies, it cripples our producers'
efforts to earn more from the marketplace and less from support
payments that continue to be forked over by the billions. The bill
fails to meet the needs of other Americans who depend on agencies in
the bill for nutrition, food safety, and other important services.
Technically the bill provides $17.005 billion for discretionary
programs, and that is about a percent below the budget request, but 5
percent below the 2003 level of $17.877 billion, a most astonishing set
of cutbacks in America's leading domestic industry that still maintains
a trade surplus in global markets. I might mention, if Members think
about the total of our entire bill, about $17 billion, we are spending
that much in 4 months in Iraq. According to what Secretary Rumsfeld has
told Congress, we are spending about $4 billion a month, twice as much
as we anticipated, to try to feed hungry people and deal with health
clinics and all the related expenditures in keeping our troops well
supplied. If we think about what we are asking for in this bill versus
what we are spending in other places in the world, we can call into
question what has been brought to the floor in this package.
Now, among the funds and programs that are underfunded or at risk of
inadequate support are farm loans, rural development, domestic food
programs, international food aid, research, which is so important to
the future, the Food & Drug Administration, such as approving medical
devices, and a number of mandatory programs, for which funding is
blocked. Funding for many new initiatives established in the farm bill
to lead American agriculture into the 21st century is, once again,
deferred.
And in some other accounts, it is highly likely that additional funds
may be needed when this bill goes to conference, but those funds simply
will not be available.
Let us talk about rural America. It is a part of our country on life
support. We have a crisis in the rural parts of America born of
concentration inside our market that is supposed to be competitive. As
well, we have a crisis of diminishing U.S. exports. Even though our
agricultural trade surplus at least helps to try to hold up our trade
accounts, nonetheless, over the years we have had fewer agricultural
exports and more imports coming into this country. So, agricultural
America is beginning to tilt toward the negative in the same way as
manufacturing America in terms of our trade accounts. We have a crisis
in rural America of ignoring investment in new value-added developments
such as bioenergy production in which this bill severely underinvests.
The economic crisis in agriculture has social consequences in crime and
social instability in the part of America that used to be called the
heartland and always regarded as the cherished repository of our most
fundamental values of free holding, of family, of faith, of community,
and of stewardship.
The New York Times ran a powerful article in December entitled
``Pastoral Poverty: The Seeds of Decline.'' It detailed the systematic
decline of the social fabric across rural America. Here are some of the
conditions that were mentioned: the rate of serious crime in
predominantly rural States such as Kansas and Oklahoma is 50 percent
higher than in places like New York State where we have some of the
largest metropolitan areas in the country; bank robberies are most
likely in towns of 10,000 to 25,000 people. The article went on to talk
about people in rural areas making much less than their urban
counterparts and much more likely to have only minimum-wage jobs.
There were 300 times more seizures of methamphetamine labs in Iowa in
1999 than in New York and New Jersey combined, based on Drug
Enforcement Administration figures.
So if everything is so great, why is the social fabric
disintegrating? The economic factors that lead to this social
disintegration are very clear, and they have been accelerating for a
number of years. This bill will only help exacerbate them because today
it is no secret that all that is holding up rural America is Federal
subsidy. Fifty cents of every farm dollar today is earned from the
mailbox when the farmer goes out to get his subsidy check, not from the
market.
{time} 1215
This bill could really do something to turn that around. It fails to
do that.
More farmers and ranchers are depending on off-farm income to
supplement an economy that is not working for them. USDA's economists
recently reported that more than half of all farm operators have off-
farm income, and when other household members are added in the off-farm
income level jumps to 85 percent. So farming is becoming more of a
hobby-oriented activity out there because you cannot earn your income
unless you have inherited an enormous amount from past generations and
even then you are trying to hold up your current debt level. The market
is not providing real income without the Federal subsidy.
The stresses of rural life were also illustrated in a story last year
about an Iowa program to provide mental health counseling to struggling
farmers and their families. Surely this economic stress has an impact
on people's ability to weather this economy over a number of years. But
the funding so essential to help farmers make it in the market, in the
competitive marketplace, is severely undermined in this bill. This is
true with farm loan programs. Which help farmers to buy a farm or
operate a farm; with rural development programs, which help both
individuals and communities with homeownership, so essential to helping
move our economy out of recession; water and sewer needs, which are
hard investments that lead to growth; telecommunications and other
vital services so necessary to help rural America jump-start into the
private economy. All of these needed programs are either cut or fail to
be funded in this bill. The bill falls far short of the true need.
Let us go through them. Farm loans. Overall, the bill cuts farm loans
by 5 percent below the request, providing $173 million less in loans.
For three critical programs, farm ownership guaranteed loans, farm
operating direct loans, and farm operating subsidized guaranteed loans,
the bill provides about a half a billion dollars less in loans than
last year. That is a 20 percent cut. That is a cut in investment for
our future.
Many other programs are cut. The business and industry guaranteed
loan program is cut by 38 percent. This is where the new jobs will come
from in rural America. Yet, in a time of recession, the administration
and their congressional allies are cutting that by over a third.
Single family guaranteed home loans are 4 percent below the 2003
request. And think about that. That is $120 million less to offer
borrowers at a time when the housing industry is the only industry that
is out there that is holding this economy up as it hemorrhages jobs in
other sectors.
[[Page H6619]]
The bill eliminates funding for the Rural Telephone Bank, which made
$175 million of loans last year in 23 States. And we know that the
utilities and the communications infrastructure of rural America is not
at the same level as in our metropolitan areas. I think that is a very
backward-looking cut.
What about water and wastewater disposal grants, one of the core
programs of rural development? Every single State in this Union has
people, lots of people, backed up to try to get approval for these
programs. The bill does provide more funding than the administration's
request, but it is $43 million below what was spent last year and
almost $250 million below the level that numerous Members of Congress
asked of this committee to meet the realistic needs of rural
development.
Grants for distance learning and telemedicine and broadband are $24
million below this year's level.
I do not have to tell anybody out there about the shortage of
physicians and medical information in rural America compared to urban
and suburban America.
Funding for electric loan programs is nearly $1 billion below this
year, a 20 percent reduction. How does that really help development
across rural America?
Let us now look at our domestic and international programs. They are
underfunded. During this year, Democrats focused on the record demand
for domestic food, such as women, infants and children's coupons and
food stamps. Noting enormous lines at soup kitchens and food pantries
this winter, we fought very hard for temporary emergency assistance for
food, and for these food banks across America. The bill does not
respond adequately to these concerns, that is for sure.
Now, with the major rebuilding efforts that America is going to have
to make in Iraq and Afghanistan, food will be critical to stabilizing
the situation there; and we know that this bill falls far short of what
is needed long-term. It simply cannot hold. We cannot meet these
commitments without increasing the funding levels in these programs.
Let us now look at our domestic food programs. I mentioned the
Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program. It is $10 million below
the new authorized level in the farm bill. All you have to do is go out
to the food banks in your region to see what the need really is and
hear the concerns that have been expressed by food bank directors and
by human service directors and church leaders across this country.
Funding for the Women, Infants and Children's Program is reduced below
the administration request. The Commodity Supplemental Food Program is
almost $20 million below this year. These are all programs that help
keep people whole in bad economic times.
Neither the administration request nor the bill that is before us
today adequately provides funding for the Senior Farmers Market
Nutrition Program, despite the fact that applications in recent years
have far outpaced available funds.
The Food and Drug Administration in this bill receives nearly $11
million less than what was requested. What does that mean? It means
that we will not have full funding to implement the generic drug
program, the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, the over-the-
counter drug program and the patient safety and adverse event reporting
initiative. The bill will also halt work on the Arkansas regional lab
and reduce funding for ongoing maintenance at Food and Drug
Administration facilities by 25 percent.
An area of interest to many Members is medical device funding. The
administration made an agreement in 2002 with the medical device
industry and authorizing committees here for new industry user fees in
exchange for a set level of discretionary funding each year for the
program. Under the statute, if total discretionary funds fall short of
the required level over a several-year period, the program sunsets. But
despite the fact that it was a party to this agreement, the
administration completely failed to live up to its part of the deal
last year and this year and did not request the required funds. At
least 46 Members of both parties requested that the full amount for
devices be provided.
This bill provides an increase of $9 million over the request for the
medical device program, but this is still short of the required level
in order to really make the approval program work.
I wanted to say a word about mandatory programs because the bill
includes 10 provisions cutting mandatory agricultural programs by $540
million. These are programs that provide support for rural
firefighters; dam rehabilitation; renewable energy, and what could be
more important to our country than that when we hemorrhage in terms of
our ability to balance our trade accounts because of imported
petroleum; conservation, which was a promise made in the recent farm
bill; telecommunications and research. These cuts in those mandatory
programs will have a real impact across rural America.
The Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program is cut by $95 million,
more than twice the cut in this year's bill, despite a rapidly growing
number of dams reaching the end of their useful lives across our
country. Two years ago, the Natural Resource and Conservation Service
had identified 1,450 dams in need of rehabilitation at a cost of about
a half a billion dollars, $500 million. We have already spent that much
money in the first half of July in Iraq, but we are not willing to
spend that money here at home for infrastructure improvements.
While the bill does provide an increase of $20 million in
discretionary funding, the cut in mandatory funding makes it much
harder to meet identified needs. It is estimated there is a backlog of
over $80 million just to finish projects currently under way, so
funding on both the discretion and the mandatory sides are needed.
The bill eliminates the funding for rural firefighters. The bill
eliminates all funding for the conservation security program. And in
the Wetlands Reserve Program, so essential to assuring a
healthy ecosystem, the bill cuts new enrollment in the program by a
fifth, by 20 percent, which means that we will have so many fewer
people who will be able to participate in a program that has a backlog
of 736,000 acres.
In the EQIP Program, the bill reduces funding by $25 million; and
that means that there will be 1,450 producers who will not be able to
get EQIP funding this year.
In renewable energy, I think the bill is terribly ill-advised in
zeroing out funding in a sector where America must restore her
independence.
And in value-added grants, which the farm bill asked for, this bill
zeros out support for the new jobs of the future that could be created
across rural America.
In broadband loans for telecommunications, the bill eliminates all
funding for this authorized program.
And for the initiative for future agriculture and food systems, the
bill cuts $120 million from this competitive grant program which is
designed to do research in critical areas such as genomics, food
safety, food technology, human nutrition, new and alternative uses and
production of agricultural commodities and products, agricultural
biotechnology, where so much of our future lies and the world's future,
natural resource management, including precision agriculture, and farm
efficiency and profitability.
Other shortcomings in the bill I will quickly mention. Country-of-
origin labeling. The bill prevents the implementation of origin labels
for meat and meat products. This is a basic consumer right-to-know
issue which the House unanimously supported when it instructed its
conferees on the farm bill to support country-of-origin labeling for
both meat and perishable products.
In terms of the provisions for meatpacker audits, the administration
asked Congress for $1 million for the Grain Inspection, Packers and
Stockyards Administration to audit the four largest steer and heifer
meatpackers for compliance with that act. This might sound routine, but
it is not. This would be the first time in the 82-year history of the
Packers and Stockyards Act that the agency has required a large packer
audit, but the bill conveniently does not provide the funding. Gosh, I
wonder why.
And then in the food safety and inspection provisions, the bill
provides about $12 million less than requested for the Food Safety and
Inspection Service.
[[Page H6620]]
In terms of research, and this is really the seed corn for the
future, the bill provides only half of the funding for the upgrading of
security at our agricultural research labs.
In addition to that, the Cooperative Research Education and Extension
Service, overall funding is over the request of the administration but
$22 million lower than this year's level. As a result, many important
research institutions and activities, including our 1890 and 1994
institutions, are shortchanged. In addition, at least 95 Members of
this House of both parties asked for a 5 percent increase in these
research formula funds, but the bill does not provide this.
Many Members also asked for $200 million for funding the national
research initiative, but the bill provides only $149 million.
The Economic Research Service and National Agricultural Statistics
Service would receive almost $12 million less than requested, forcing
the postponement of important initiatives such as genomics research and
improvement of statistical information in our New England States,
Hawaii and Alaska.
In concluding these opening remarks, I would just like to summarize
by saying that budgets reveal priorities. This year we are seeing that
the Republican Party in this House is willing to put huge tax breaks
for the most well-off in our society and also military action around
the world ahead of almost every other economic and social value in our
country. Rural America needs to have market-oriented incentives, not
dole for farmers from coast to coast. This bill is an important answer
to the situation confronting our Nation in one of the most vital
sectors of our economy, and we should not shortchange the future by the
underinvestment that this bill represents.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1230
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the very distinguished
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), ranking member of our full
committee.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, frankly, this bill is a mixed bag. We have a
number of items in this bill that I support; but as is the case with so
many other appropriations this year, our ability to do many things to
help strengthen the economy of rural America is substantially crippled
by the fact that our majority friends in this House have already
decided to put all of their eggs in the tax cut basket, and that means
that there is very little available for a variety of other activities
whether we are talking about education or health care or in the case of
this bill whether we are talking about rural sewer and water grants,
rural development programs, FDA, name it.
I am distressed by some of these reductions. The gentlewoman from
Ohio has already mentioned them. But just as examples, I would again
cite inadequate funding for farm loans, for rural development, for
rural water and sewer, for distance learning and telemedicine. We have
$540 million in limitation on mandatory programs, and there are a
number of other items.
But I would like to address just two other points. Number one, I am
distressed that this bill contains language which prevents labeling for
meat, country-of-origin labeling. I think our domestic producers have a
right to be able to communicate to our domestic consumers whether or
not food products are produced in this country or somewhere else. I
think our consumers have a right to know that information, and I think
that very clearly our special interests have weighed in and seen to it
that this House will not do its duty to the public by preserving that
labeling.
Secondly, I would like to discuss for a moment the amendment which
purports to allow the reimportation of drugs into this country by
senior citizens and some others. That is a well-meaning amendment, I
will grant, and in the past I have been tempted on some occasions to
support it myself. But I would simply point out that I think that this
amendment is not likely to produce the effect that some would hope.
First of all, the law requires that for a drug to be reimported it has
to meet certain standards, and the problem is that our domestic
pharmaceutical companies are very clever, and they can find hundreds of
ways to prevent those drugs from meeting reimportation standards. They
can prevent the use of a label which would meet U.S. standards and,
therefore, prevent reimportation of a drug.
They can omit language required in the U.S. on those labels as an
easy way to prevent those drugs from being reimported. They can put a
drug in a form that is not time released when it is provided in the
United States that it be in a time-released form. And so there are many
ways which the intent of this language can be frustrating.
Secondly, I do not believe that this provision will have any
significant impact on overall drug prices still charged to American
consumers. And there are a number of other reasons which I will not
take the time of the House now to go into, which make it quite clear
that while this proposal is aimed at enabling seniors to reimport those
drugs, the fact is that our domestic manufacturers, I think, are going
to easily frustrate this language.
So I would say to the Members to vote however they are going to vote
on it. It is not going to have much effect. I respect the intention,
but that is about it. But I would simply say that if we want to do
something real on prescription drugs, we will simply pass an expanded
reliable, adequate, affordable prescription drug benefit under Medicare
so that none of our seniors are reduced to the necessity to drive to
Canada every couple of months to get a supply. That is what this
Congress would do if it was not owned lock, stock and barrel by the
pharmaceutical industry on this issue, but unfortunately it is and so
it will not. And we will be stuck with these very tepid alternatives to
meaningful action.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), ranking member of the authorizing
committee.
(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill. I commend
the chairwoman, the chairman of the subcommittee, and the full
committee chairman for their work in a very difficult task. They were
handed a very difficult situation in which they would take the amount
of revenue available for the much-needed rural development,
agricultural conservation issues and did the best they could under a
very difficult situation. But I commend them for that action and look
forward to working with them throughout the process to do as good a job
for American agriculture that continues to feed the United States.
We have the most abundant food supply, the best quality of food, the
safest food supply at the lowest cost to our people than any other
country in the world; and what we are about to debate today is what has
contributed to that over the years. I urge the support of the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill.
Once again, legislation relating to agriculture policy demonstrates
the progress that can be made when a broadly-inclusive, bipartisan
approach is taken towards solving national problems.
America's farmers and ranchers continue to struggle to survive as
they face the global market. But while particular problem areas
continue to plague the agricultural economy, overall there is reason
for optimism that recovery in the farm and ranch sector is taking hold.
The Agriculture Department's Economic Research Service recently
forecast that 2003 net farm income will be $46.2 billion; this is
significantly higher than 2002, with both crop and livestock receipts
predicted to increase. The 2002 Farm Bill--which was developed on a
bipartisan basis, passed overwhelmingly in both Houses, and signed by
the President--is part of the story for this improvement.
Mr. Chairman, this view of recovery in agriculture has to be
qualified to a significant degree, however. Milk, livestock, and many
crop prices have not recovered to the degree that would allow producers
to resume significant capital investments. Also, much of the
improvement shown in the net farm income figure is attributable to
timing changes associated with programs enacted by last year's Farm
Bill. And, of course, the rural economy continually must adjust to the
rapid consolidation that continues to occur in farming and
[[Page H6621]]
ranching. And while these statistics demonstrate that conditions have
improved for some of agriculture, many producers still find themselves
faced with very difficult financial conditions.
So while total victory can't be claimed, I stress the point that
inclusive development of agricultural policy has led to more optimistic
conditions for the agricultural economy. Perhaps a similar approach to
general economic policy would remove some of the doubt that clouds
prospects for our economy in general.
Mr. Chairman, this partial improvement in the agricultural economy
has been noticed in the cities. On June 16, the Wall Street Journal
reported that the farm economy ``is in recovery and moving toward
strength.'' The article discusses the very difficult times that have
afflicted agriculture for the last five years, and cites rising
commodity prices, a devalued dollar, improved weather, and resurgent
imports as reasons to be bullish for agriculture.
But the article also makes it clear why the cities are taking note:
the improving situation is a key factor behind improved economic
conditions in middle America--which is recovering more quickly than the
rest of the nation. I'll quote from the article: ``While farmers by
themselves are a tiny part of the economy, they have a broad impact on
it. The industries that sell to farmers and use farm products account
for 12.3 percent of the country's gross domestic product and 16.7
percent of jobs, according to the Agriculture Department.''
Mr. Chairman, the Wall Street Journal and many other big city
newspapers criticized the Farm Bill when it was passed. But if they
read their own pages today, they'll see that this country has made a
wise investment, and that the returns go well beyond the farmstead.
Mr. Chairman, the bill before the House today provides the funding
needed to implement the farm bill's programs. These include the
commodity income support programs, the greatest expansion in farm
conservation spending in our history, the Food Stamp program, and
foreign food aid. It also funds important research efforts--investments
in our nation's future; crucial pest and disease eradication programs,
and rural economic development.
Mr. Chairman, fiscally speaking these are tough times and the
Appropriations Committee labored under very tight constraints in the
development of this bill. While being diligent and confining themselves
to their allocation, they have struck a responsible balance among the
competing priorities. I congratulate Mr. Bonilla and Ms. Kaptur,
Chairman Young and my colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and I urge
my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, today, I regretfully rise in
opposition to this bill.
I did not support the Farm Security Act that was signed into law last
year. But now that it has been signed into law it should be properly
funded and this bill does not do that.
In fact, some good programs are no longer funded under this bill,
including the Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Improvements program
and the Conservation Security Program. Not funding these programs
steers our agriculture policy in the wrong direction.
The Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Improvements would help
farmers improve energy efficiency and even sell back energy created on
their farms. This program would help farmers become more profitable as
the margins on their commodities get smaller. But this program, which
was supported by Congress last year, is zeroed out.
The Conservation Security Program has provided an incentive program
for farmers to improve the ecological management of working lands. This
program rewarded farmers for taking proper care of their land to
prevent erosion and to help keep the land fertile. This often means not
maximizing the full profitability of the land during a growing season
to ensure that the land will continue to be productive in the future.
Again, this is a program that was supported by Congress last year but
the Majority Party in the House has decided not to fund it.
There is a long list of other programs that are cut: From the Women,
Infant, and Children program, which helps insure that young children
and their mothers get the nutrition they need; to Farm Ownership Loans,
which help farmers and ranchers buy their own facilities; to the Rural
Housing Service, which helps rural residents obtain adequate and
affordable housing; and the list goes on and on.
The annual Agriculture Appropriation Bill often is not very
controversial and I have supported it in the past. But this year's bill
will hurt America's farmers and ranchers because it doesn't provide the
funding needed. This is particularly true for those farmers and
ranchers who are still reeling from the effects of drought.
There are a lot of critical programs that are funded in this bill and
I would like to support the bill, but on balance it does not do enough
and therefore I cannot.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit the testimony of
Wenonah Hauter of Public Citizen before the House Agriculture
Appropriations Subcommittee. This testimony was inadvertently omitted
from the printed hearings of the Subcommittee.
Testimony of Wenonah Hauter Director of the Critical Mass Energy and
Environment Program Public Citizen
Chairman Bonilla, Ranking Member Kaptur and Members of the
Subcommittee, my name is Wenonah Hauter. I am the Director of
Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and Environment
Program. As you know, Public Citizen is a national consumer
organization founded by Ralph Nader in 1971. We represent
150,000 members. We welcome this opportunity to present our
views on the FY 2004 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill.
USDA--Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
We are adamantly opposed to the Administration's proposal
to collect $122 million in user fees to recover the cost of
providing inspection services beyond an approved eight-hour
primary shift. We believe that such a proposal could
compromise the effectiveness of FSIS inspectors. Furthermore,
FSIS has already taken action to de-list foreign
establishments that had been previously approved to export
their meat and poultry products to the United States on the
basis that inspection services were paid by the companies
involved instead of by the foreign government. Implementation
of the Administration's proposal to institute user fees would
be hypocritical.
Additionally, we are concerned that the current proposal to
hire approximately 80 more FSIS inspectors will be inadequate
to fill current vacancies and to make up for previous year's
cuts. We recommend that at least 200 line inspectors be hired
this year.
The alarming number and magnitude of meat and poultry
recalls in the past year indicate that there are some serious
problems with the implementation of the Hazard Analysis
Critical Control Points (HAACP) program. We have been arguing
for the past three years that HACCP has turned over too much
authority to industry to police itself and has severely
undercut the ability of FSIS inspection personnel to their
jobs. We have heard directly from inspection personnel who
state that they are very confused and concerned over their
roles in HAACP.
More troubling is the fact that the economic well-being of
companies is placed ahead of the public's welfare by the
management at FSIS. In June 2002, we were able to obtain
instructions to FSIS inspectors assigned to a large Kansas
slaughter plant in which they were admonished that should
they err on the side of public health and stop a slaughter
line for suspected fecal contamination they could be
personally liable for their decision.
We are also concerned about the failure of supervisors and
management to back up FSIS inspectors when they discover food
safety hazards. Since last year's massive ConAgra recall, it
has come to light that USDA was notified of potential
problems at the Greeley, Colorado plant as early as February
2002--some three months before the first recall notice went
out. Warnings came from John Munsell, president of Montana
Quality Foods and Processing, after FSIS personnel assigned
to his plant confirmed that the source of contaminated meat
ground at Montana Quality Foods and Processing was the
ConAgra plant in Greeley, Colorado. Instead of applauding Mr.
Munsell and the FSIS personnel for their investigative work,
they have been maligned by top FSIS officials and have been
told they had no authority to point the finger at ConAgra.
The same can be said of the Wampler recall. A twenty-year
veteran FSIS inspector, Vincent Erthal, had tried to warn his
supervisors for several months of the unsanitary conditions
at the Wampler plant in Franconia, Pennsylvania. His concerns
went unheeded. This fall, the second largest recall in FSIS
history was issued for possible Listeria monocytogenes
contamination of product coming out of that plant. After much
soul-searching, Mr. Erthal decided to come forward to reveal
how his attempts to warn FSIS supervision of his concerns
were thwarted. Again, instead of backing their own employee,
FSIS management has circled the wagons and launched a
campaign to discredit Mr. Erthal.
With all of the problems that FSIS has already experienced
with their implementation of HAACP in processing plants, the
proposed FY 2004 budget contains language that would expand
the HACCP-based Inspection Models Project (HIMP) in slaughter
facilities. HIMP is yet another attempt at weakening the
authority of FSIS inspection personnel and turning that
responsibility over to company personnel. In a December 17,
2001 report, staff from the General Accounting Office found
glaring methodological deficiencies in FSIS' current pilot
project. There has not been any evidence to show that those
deficiencies have been addressed. Therefore, we would urge
that this expansion of HIMP not go forward until all data
from the current project has been evaluated.
While we applaud additional funds to support food safety
education, we believe that the money will actually be used to
promote irradiation. In her written remarks to the
Subcommittee, Under Secretary for Food Safety Dr. Elsa Murano
stated it was her intent to devote resources to educate the
public about food irradiation. Her remarks also indicate that
she will attempt to blur the
[[Page H6622]]
definition of pasteurization to include irradiation as part
of the education campaign.
In focus groups conducted for FSIS in 2002, consumers in
St. Louis, Missouri; Raleigh, North Carolina; and
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania were asked whether they considered
irradiation to be a form of pasteurization, and
overwhelmingly consumers responded that making such an
assertion would be misleading. Those findings corroborated
findings from focus groups conducted for the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) in three different cities during the
summer of 2001. We urge you not to fund any additional
efforts to change labeling requirements for irradiated food
by allowing ``pasteurization'' to be used.
Lastly, we are concerned about the recent revelations that
FSIS still has not addressed problems identified by the USDA
Inspector General (IG) regarding the agency's reinspection
program for imported meat and poultry products. In 2000, the
IG noted some 18 deficiencies in the FSIS reinspection
program. In her recent audit, the IG stated that FSIS has
still not corrected 14 of those deficiencies--even though
they had agreed to do so three years ago. In light of the
heightened concerns about the security of our food supply,
this is unconscionable. We urge you to instruct FSIS to
comply with the recommendations in the 2000 Inspector General
report.
usda--food and nutrition service/agricultural marketing service
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (the
Farm Bill) contains a provision (section 4201 (1)) that
directs the Secretary of Agriculture not to prohibit the use
of approved food safety technologies in any commodity
purchased by the USDA for various government-sponsored
nutrition programs, including the National School Lunch and
National Breakfast Programs. The USDA has decided this means
that they should lift the current ban on the use of
irradiation as an intervention for ground beef products
purchased for these programs. And, it seems irradiation is
the only approved food safety technology they are pursuing.
Section 4201(l) received no scrutiny from any congressional
committee, in either the House or Senate. It never received
any floor debate in either the House or Senate. It was placed
in the Senate version of the Farm Bill at the last minute as
part of a 400-page manager's amendment. The conferees on the
Farm Bill never even discussed it in open session.
On November 22, 2002, the USDA announced that it would
solicit comments from the public on the implementation of
Section 4201(l) of the Farm Bill and specifically wanted
comments on irradiation. The comments are being collected by
the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). Of the comments
posted on the AMS website as of March 19, 2003, by over a 5
to 1 margin, citizens have expressed their opposition to
lifting the ban on irradiation--with thousands of comments
still left to be posted. Comments opposing such action have
come from nearly all fifty states, while those supporting the
technology have come primarily from those who have direct
ties to the irradiation industry.
In order to promote this technology, the Food and Nutrition
Service (FNS) has funded an irradiation ``education'' program
in three Minnesota school districts. The program is being
administered by proponents of irradiation--with no access for
critics of the technology to present alternative views. In
addition, the steering committee for the program is dominated
by one irradiation company and its affiliates. In essence,
FNS is funding a government-sponsored advertising campaign
for one company.
Recent research indicates that some chemicals formed when
certain foods are irradiated may be harmful when consumed.
The new studies call into question the long-held position of
the FDA and the food industry that irradiated foods are
generally safe for human consumption. But the studies confirm
research published in 1998 and 2001 showing that
concentrations of chemicals called 2-alkylcyclobutanones (or
2-ACBs)--which are found only in irradiated foods--caused DNA
damage in human cells. Among the new findings, 2-ACBs were
shown to promote tumor development in rat colons. The 2-ACBs
are formed when foods that contain fat are irradiated,
such as beef, chicken, eggs and certain fruits--all of
which can legally be irradiated.
There is even less research into the long-term health
effects experienced by children who are exposed to toxic
chemicals in foods. Dr. William Au, a toxicologist at the
Department of Preventive Medicine and Community Health,
University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, has argued
that the lack of understanding regarding the ill effects
suffered by children who consume toxic chemicals in foods
extends to ``the toxicological risk with respect to eating
irradiated food.''
If implemented, Section 4201 (1) will create the largest
mass-feeding of irradiated food to children in history. We
urge the committee not to fund the purchase of irradiated
food for federal government nutrition programs.
Food and Drug Administration
We are concerned about the lack of funding for the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) for import reinspections. Even
after the additional funding the agency received in FY 2003
to hire more staff to perform food import reinspections, the
agency is only capable of reinspecting a paltry 1.3 percent
of imported food over which it has jurisdiction. This needs
to be addressed with additional funding, with the goal of
reaching at least the 20 percent reinspection rate that FSIS
is able to perform for imported meat and poultry products.
Furthermore, FDA should be granted the same authority that
FSIS currently possesses to inspect foreign establishments
that can export their food to the United States.
We are also concerned with the repeated attempts to weaken
the labeling for irradiated foods. The FDA has visited this
issue repeatedly since 1997--primarily at the direction of
Congress. Each time, the FDA finds that consumers do not see
eye-to-eye on this issue with the irradiation industry and
their supporters in Congress. It seems that there are those
who want to keep on trying until we get it wrong.
In the conference committee report that accompanied the FY
2001 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, the
conferees stated: ``The conferees expect FDA to make final
the regulations regarding labeling of irradiated foods by
March 1, 2002, and report to the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations on the status by November 15, 2000. This
agreement changes the dates proposed for final regulations by
the House of September 30, 2001, and by the Senate of October
30, 2001.''
In its report to the Appropriations Committees, the FDA
explained that it had published an Advanced Notice for
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) in 1999 on food irradiation
labeling as the agency was directed to do under the FDA
Modernization Act conference committee report in 1997. In
evaluating the comments that the agency received from the
ANPR, FDA stated: ``The majority of these comments were
letters that urged the agency to retain special labeling for
irradiated foods but did not address the specific issues on
which FDA requested comment. A preliminary analysis of the
comments suggests no consensus about what alternative
language for disclosure of irradiation processing would be
truthful and not misleading. Because the public comments
provided no clear direction for agency rulemaking, FDA
believes that 1999 ANPR fulfills the Agency's obligations
under the FDAMA Conference Report.''
The FDA went on to say in its report to Congress that it
intended to impanel consumer focus groups to attempt to
obtain further guidance on the labeling issue.
During the summer of 2001, the FDA commissioned six
consumer focus groups in suburban Washington, DC;
Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Sacramento, California. In all of
the focus groups, the moderator attempted to make a strong
association between pasteurization and irradiation. This was
significant since there have been some irradiation proponents
who have argued that a more appropriate term to describe
irradiation is either ``cold pasteurization'' or ``electronic
pasteurization.'' In a 2002 report to Congress, the FDA
summarized the results of those focus groups: ``Most of the
participants viewed alternate terms such as `cold
pasteurization' and `electronic pasteurization' as
misleading, because they appeared to conceal rather than
disclose information about irradiated food products.
Participants did not see the current disclosure labeling as a
warning . . . Everyone agreed that irradiated foods should be
labeled honestly. They indicated that the current FDA
required statement is a straightforward way for labeling
irradiated foods.''
Furthermore, in his 2002 testimony before the House
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations, Dr.
Lester Crawford, Deputy Commissioner of the FDA stated:
``(W)hen we did focus groups at FDA on cold pasteurization,
the general feeling of the average citizen was that this was
kind of a ruse or a means to conceal the fact that the food
had been irradiated. And so we are kind of back to square
one. We don't have a good synonym for irradiation and we
would like to have one. We don't want to mislead the
public.''
The public has been very consistent on the issue--in focus
groups for USDA and FDA and in public comments solicited by
FDA. Consumers do not want labeling rules for irradiated food
to allow euphemisms like ``electronic pasteurization.'' In
fact, rather than changing the words that are permitted to
describe irradiated food, FDA should instead focus on
expanding the current rules beyond retail establishments, so
that irradiated food served in restaurants, hospitals and
schools must be labeled. There have already been too many
resources devoted to this issue within FDA. The driving force
ought to be what the consumers believe to be honest and
straightforward labeling--not what some in industry think
will make it easier to sell their product. The FDA has more
important things to do than devising ways to confuse and
mislead consumers. We urge you not to find further attempts
to change labeling rules for irradiated foods.
Thank you.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I regret that I was unable to be here
during debate on the Agriculture Appropriations bill. Had I been
available, I would have engaged Congresswoman Kaptur, the ranking
member on the House Appropriations Agriculture Subcommittee, in a
colloquy to discuss research on chronic wasting disease transmission.
Chronic wasting disease is spreading into Illinois. The emergence of
this disease in Cook
[[Page H6623]]
County is the closest the disease has come to a large urban population.
While this disease has yet to be detected in humans, little is known
about how chronic wasting disease is transmitted from species to
species. Illinois is fortunate to have unique multidisciplinary
research collaborations, such as the Conservation Medicine Center of
Chicago (CMCC), positioned to conduct important chronic wasting disease
transmission research. The CMCC is a unique collaboration between
Brookfield Zoo, Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine,
and the University of Illinois College of Veterinary Medicine. The CMCC
brings together an exceptional team of nearly twenty-five physicians,
veterinarians, researchers and clinicians from many disciplines to
study conservation medicine.
Chronic wasting disease is a growing problem across the country and
the Committee has included funds for chronic wasting disease research
in the Department of Agriculture's budget. I would like to urge the
Department to utilize unique multidisciplinary research collaborations,
such as the CMCC, to study this emerging disease and its transmission.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, to a farmer, `erosion' is the progressive
loss of some of the best means to robust and sustained production from
their lands. It is one of the most expensive and difficult problems
threatening their liveliehood--but, fortunately, it is a loss many
farmers prevent by enrolling some of their marginal working lands in
voluntary conservation programs.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I mention this because of the cynical irony at
hand--today, it is Congress that must act to prevent another form of
`erosion', the erosion of legislation this Congress passed with great
debate just one year ago--the 2002 Farm Bill.
At the time, I led an effort to increase funding to conservation
programs that are available to all farmers because I strongly believed
the 2002 Farm Bill to be too heavily weighted to primarily assisting
the largest growers of a few commodity crops in a handful of states.
Because of this lopsided tilt toward commodity subsidization, many who
are not eligible--including dairy farmers, ranchers and fruit and
vegetable farmers--rely upon conservation programs to boost farm and
ranch income and to ease the cost of environmental compliance.
I argued that a small shift in funds from the commodity programs to
voluntary conservation programs would significantly help more farmers
in more regions of the country. At the end of the debate, conservation
programs made some gains, though not all that I had sought.
The Farm Bill provided nearly $3 billion for USDA conservation
programs in FY 2004, including $1.1 billion for working lands
incentives programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives program,
the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, and the Conservation Security
Program.
The point, however, is that the 2002 Farm Bill was the end product of
vociferous debate and was the culmination of all Members' input.
Unfortunately, the FY 2004 Agriculture Appropriations bill before us
today undermines all of those efforts by rewriting the Farm Bill to
reduce these critical working lands incentive programs by nearly 10
percent. Make no mistake, if passed, this bill will do nothing less
than deny farmers and ranchers the funds they were promised.
The fiscal year 2004 Agricultural Appropriations bill before us today
is supposed to provide the resources needed to help America's
struggling farmers and ranchers--not go back and begin chipping away at
pieces of the Farm Bill to better suit the view of a few appropriators.
Yet, this is exactly what has happened. In total this Appropriation
Bill seeks to eliminate more than $100 million from conservation and
renewable energy programs that has been authorized under the 2002 Farm
Bill.
Farmers and ranchers who depend upon these programs, and who have
been hit hardest financially in recent years, will receive a
disproportionately large cut in spending in FY 2004. In contrast, I am
disappointed to note that no cuts have been proposed to commodity
payments flowing to the largest grain farmers in just 15 states.
Specifically, sections 737, 738 and 745 of the underlying bill will
respectively limit the enrollment of the Wetlands Reserve program by
slashing 50,000 acres, or about $56 million from its authorized level;
cut $25 million from the Environmental Quality Incentive program; and
totally gut the Conservation Security program.
Despite the funds provided by the Farm Bill, most farmers and
ranchers offering to restore wetlands and grasslands or offering to
change the way they farm to improve air and water quality are still
rejected when they seek USDA conservation assistance. For example,
farmers and ranchers face a $1.4 billion backlog when they seek cost-
sharing from the Environmental Quality Incentives program to improve
water quality or wildlife habitat. These long lines will only grow
longer if cut funds provided by the Farm Bill as has been proposed in
the underlying bill.
WRP and EQIP are programs proven to assist farmers while helping the
environment, and CSP holds equal promise.
Farmers have offered to restore most than 600,000 acres of lost
wetlands by enrolling farmland into the wetlands reserve program. But,
nearly all of these farmers will be rejected in FY 04, thanks in part
to the cut included in this Appropriations Bill. These farmers are
offering to restore more wetlands than the entire Nation destroys in a
decade. Wetlands are not only crucial to wildlife and fish habitat but
also to our own sources of drinking water. But the Agriculture
Appropriations bill instead proposes to cut, rather than increase,
funding to this crucial program.
Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, by providing more than $6.5 billion for
working lands programs like EQIP and CSP in the 2002 Farm Bill,
Congress decisively increased funds to help farmers manage working
lands to produce food and fiber and simultaneously enhance water
quality and wildlife habitat. EQUIP helps share the cost of a broad
range of land management practices that help the environment, include
more efficient use of fertilizers and pesticides and innovative
technologies to store and reuse animal waste. CSP is a new program that
will link conservation payments to gradually increasing levels of
performance. In combination, these programs will provide farmers the
tools and incentives they need to help meet our major environmental
challenges.
Again, appropriators did not seek any cuts from the commodity
programs, and it is these programs that the administration has
identified as a barrier to successful negotiations in the World Trade
Organzation as well as to the secure economic future of developing
nations.
Mr. Chairman, President Bush recently toured the African Continent.
In a New York Times article about the trip, the President is quoted on
the topic of domestic agriculture subsidies as saying, ``. . . It will
come up in every country we come to, because African leaders are
worried that subsidies, agricultural subsidies, are undermining their
capacity to become self-sufficient . . .''
And in recent testimony before the House Agriculture Committee, U.S.
Trade Representative Robert Zoellick spoke about the need to
``Harmonize and reduce trade-distorting domestic support programs.''
The prior global negotiating effort--the Uruguay round (1986-1994)--
was the first serious attempt to impose reforming disciplines on the
world agricultural trade. Yet, the Uruguay round only started the job
of tackling trade-distorting domestic subsidies by allocating them into
three categories: ``green box'' subsidies, which involved payments
decoupled from production incentives such as conservation programs;
``amber box'' subsidies, which includes payments linked to production,
were capped at current levels and then cut by 20 percent and ``blue
box'' subsidies, for payments linked to reductions in production, were
allowed subject to specific criteria.
In his testimony before Congress, USTR Zoellick stated, ``The current
`DOHA Round' of negotiations seeks to build on the first step of the
Uruguay round by pressing for much more substantial reductions to
achieve a more levels playing field. To do so, the United States has
proposed a cut of over $100 billion in trade-distorting support
globally, undertaken in a manner that harmonizes levels across
countries, with the eventual elimination of these subsidies all
together.''
Mr. Chairman, as much as some appropriators and a few others in
Congress may want to avoid the inevitable need to reform our domestic
commodity support programs, it is equally unfortunate they have used
this spending bill to erode our past work and break Congress's promise
to America's farmers and ranchers.
I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this misprioritized and
shortsighted bill.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in support of H.R.
2673, the Agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004.
This Member would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Bonilla), the Chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations
Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur),
the ranking member of the Subcommittee, for their hard work in bringing
this bill to the Floor.
Mr. Chairman, this Member certainly recognizes the severe budget
constraints under which the full Appropriations Committee and the
Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee operated. In light of these
constraints, this Member is grateful and pleased that this legislation
includes funding for several important projects of interest to the
state of Nebraska.
First, this Member is pleased that H.R. 2673 provides $477,000 for
the Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance (MAFMA). The Alliance
is an association of twelve leading research universities and corporate
partners. Its purpose is to develop and facilitate the transfer of new
food manufacturing and processing technologies.
The MAFMA award grants for research projects on a peer review basis.
These awards
[[Page H6624]]
must be supported by an industry partner willing to provide matching
funds. In 2002, MAFMA had a total of 22 requests for funds seeking
$789,995 with matching funds of $916,596. Thirteen proposals were
funded with the total award of $387,688. Matching funds for the funded
proposals were $416,702 in addition to an in-kind total of $97,550.
These figures convincingly demonstrate how successful the Alliance has
been in leveraging support from the food manufacturing and processing
industries.
Mr. Chairman, the future viability and competitiveness of the U.S.
agricultural industry depends on its ability to adapt to increasing
world-wide demands for U.S. exports of intermediate and consumer good
exports. In order to meet these changing world-wide demands,
agricultural research must also adapt to provide more emphasis on
adding value to our basic farm commodities. The Midwest Advanced Food
Manufacturing Alliance can provide the necessary cooperative link
between universities and industries for the development of competitive
food manufacturing and processing technologies. This will, in turn,
ensure that the United States agricultural industry remains competitive
in a increasingly competitive global economy.
This Member is also pleased that this bill includes $224,000 to fund
the National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC) at the University of
Nebraska-Lincoln. This project has assisted numerous states and cities
in developing drought plans and developing drought response teams.
Given the nearly unprecedented levels of drought in several parts of
our country in recent years, this effort is obviously important.
Another important project funded by this bill is the Alliance for
Food Protection, a joint project between the University of Nebraska and
the University of Georgia. The mission of this Alliance is to assist
the development and modification of food processing and preservation
technologies. This technology will help ensure that Americans continue
to receive the safest and highest quality food possible.
This Member is also pleased that the Committee Report expresses
support for a number of Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations
projects, including the Aowa Creek Watershed in Dixon County, Nebraska.
When completed, the project will significantly reduce the risk of
flooding to farms, roads, and community of Ponca, Nebraska. This
important flood control project is nearing completion, but lacks
sufficient funding to reimburse the local sponsor.
This Member would also note that H.R. 2673 includes a loan level of
$100 million for the Section 538, the rural rental multi-family housing
loan guarantee program. Under H.R. 2763, it is estimated that a loan
subsidy of $5.95 million will be needed to meet this loan level. The
Section 538 program provides a Federal guarantee on loans made to
eligible persons by private lenders. Developers will bring ten percent
of the cost of the project to the table, and private lenders will make
loans for the balance. The lenders will be given a 100 percent Federal
guarantee on the loans they make. Unlike the current Section 515 direct
loan Program, where the full costs are borne by the Federal Government,
the only costs to the Federal Government under the 538 Guarantee
Program will be for administrative costs and potential defaults.
Mr. Chairman, this Member certainly appreciates the $2.725 billion
loan level for the Department of Agriculture's Section 502 Unsubsidized
Loan Guarantee Program. Under H.R. 2763, it is estimated that a loan
subsidy of $39.9 million will be needed to meet this loan level. The
Section 502 program has been very effective in rural communities by
guaranteeing loans made by approved lenders to eligible income
households in small communities of up to 20,000 residents in non-
metropolitan areas and in rural areas. The program provides guarantees
for 30-year fixed-rate mortgages for the purchase of an existing home
or the construction of a new home.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, this Member supports H.R. 2673 and urges
his colleagues to approve it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, hunger is a terrible problem in the
United States and around the world.
It's a problem that affects over 20 million adults and 13 million
children right here in this country. They're our seniors, our veterans,
our neighbors, working parents and their children.
And around the world, 800 million people--300 million of them
children--go hungry every day.
I believe that hunger is a political condition.
The fact is that we have the resources to commit to ending hunger
both at home and abroad. We have the technology, the expertise, the
funding. What we lack is the political will to put an end to this
scourge.
Currently, the unemployment rate is at 6.4% and growing. The demands
on our community food banks and soup kitchens are becoming more than
they can handle.
Government is about choices.
This Congress and this Administration have chosen over and over again
to support tax cuts for the wealthy over prudent policies to help lift
Americans out of poverty and to end hunger among the 33 million
Americans who need our help.
Today, we are considering a Fiscal Year 2004 Agriculture
Appropriations bill that dramatically underfunds programs that combat
hunger here and abroad.
This Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program, a key source of
funding for food banks, is underfunded by $10 million.
The Women, Infants and Children program that provides assistance to
infants, young children and pregnant, postpartum, and nursing women who
are at-risk because of inadequate nutrition and income is $108 million
below the Fiscal Year 2003 level. Although the Committee acknowledged
that food prices were lower than expected, many of us have real
concerns that a reduction in WIC funding--coupled with a continuing
rise in unemployment--is a formula for tragedy.
The Senior Farmers Market Nutrition program is flat funded, even
though the number of applications continues to outpace the availability
of funds for this critical effort.
And if that weren't enough, Mr. Chairman, the funding levels in this
bill for international food aid are completely inadequate.
P.L. 480, Title II funding--money that goes for humanitarian food
aid--is more than $620 million below the Fiscal Year 2003 level.
And a program that I have been championing since its inception--the
McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition--is
funded at $57 million. This is a $43 million decrease from last year
and a $243 million drop from the funding provided to the initial pilot
program.
The American economy, once vibrant, is struggling. Millions of
Americans have lost their jobs, and incomes for many others are falling
as they are forced to take lower-paying jobs to avoid unemployment.
One in five children in this country is threatened by hunger.
Every day, Mr. Chairman, 33 million Americans do not know whether
there will be food on their tables. Overseas, people are starving to
death because of famine, drought, war and poverty.
Mr. Chairman, I understand the difficulties the Chairman of the
Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee faced in drafting this bill.
I'm sure that, given more resources, he would provide better funding
levels for these important programs.
But the fact remains that the numbers in this bill are too low to
meet the challenges of hunger. The last thing we should be doing is
cutting funding for programs that serve the most vulnerable.
We can and we must do better.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman
Bonilla and Ranking Member Kaptur for their support regarding the
Resident Instruction and Distance Education Grants Program for the
Insular Areas. Last year's Farm Security and Rural Investment Act
authorized this program with intent to develop and strengthen the land
grant universities in the U.S. territories.
The American Samoa Community College has a strong and growing
agricultural program which would benefit from this program. As insular
areas members we support each other in this effort to fund this program
which would provide the necessary teaching and instruction needed to
educate our local people about health and diet education, environmental
management and how best to utilize our natural resources.
At this time, I want to thank Chairman Bonilla and Ranking Member
Kaptur for their continued support and I once again recommend inclusion
of report language which acknowledges the need for funding of this
critical program.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2673, the
Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year
2004. As a representative from Iowa with an economy heavily dependent
on farming and farm-related businesses, I have a keen interest in this
legislation which funds many of our agricultural research, food safety,
and export promotion programs. As Chairman of the House Budget
Committee, I am also interested in ensuring that this bill complies
with the House Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2004
[H. Con. Res. 95].
The bill provides $17 billion in new discretionary budget authority--
$221 million above the President's request. While H.R. 2673 falls
within its budgetary allocation, I would point out that the bill
includes $538 million in mandatory savings, which are under the
jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committee.
Overall, funding for agriculture appropriations has increased at an
annual rate of 3.2 percent over the last five years. This rate is 4.5
percent below that of discretionary spending as a whole. I commend
Chairman Bonilla and Ranking Member Kaptur for their ability to work to
produce a fiscally responsible bill.
[[Page H6625]]
The bill complies with sections 302(f) and 311(a) of the Budget Act.
The first of these prohibits consideration of bills in excess of an
appropriations subcommittee's 302(b) allocation of budget authority and
outlays established in the budget resolution. The second, section
311(a), prohibits consideration of legislation exceeding the aggregate
levels of budget authority and outlays established in the concurrent
resolution on the budget.
In conclusion, I express my support for H.R. 2673, which makes an
important contribution to ensuring that Americans continue to have the
most abundant, inexpensive, and safest food supply in the world. I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this Fiscal Year 2004
Agriculture Funding measure because it represents a good product under
difficult circumstances. As we all know, this bill is not perfect--in
large part because the allocation for Fiscal Year 2004 is considerably
less than last year--some $800 million, in fact.
Because of the drop-off between the FY-03 allocation and the one for
04, the committee has to make difficult choices in order to accommodate
the various sectors that are funded in the bill. While we are going to
hear today that this bill short changes many areas, we should consider
that the bill has many positives because it does.
Even with reduced resources, many important programs are well-funded.
For example, funding for the FDA's generic drug program is increased,
as is FDA funding for food safety. The bill includes monies to
implement the ``Better Pharmaceuticals for Children Act''.
This bill also includes funding for valuable agriculture research
that is currently carried out at major research centers. That research
includes exploring better ways to make our agricultural production
lands more efficient, and our ways of production more environmentally
sound. For example, there is funding for animal feeding operations
pilot projects that bring innovative technology to bear as we seek to
reduce wastewater nutrients discharged from animal feeding operations.
Other research funding goes to helping us to better understand the
origins of food crop diseases through high-level initiatives aimed at
making our food production more economical and more healthy. Countless
projects around the country will make significant strides in the
research arena in the coming year because of this bill.
Many of those projects are in the states of some of the members who
will speak ill of this measure today. But we should remember that those
important research initiatives would not have been possible were it for
the measured approach taken in reporting this bill of committee.
Not only did the committee have to make difficult program funding
choices, but it also had to make choices to accomodate members of this
body. At a point in the process, decisions had to be made, and I
believe that the chairman did an excellent job in balancing the various
needs and interests of the agriculture community and the members.
As a member of the subcommittee from an agriculture state, I can tell
you that there are several things that I would like to have seen come
out differently, particularly as to funding levels.
As a member of the agriculture subcommittee on appropriations, I can
also tell you that all of us can point to things that we would like to
have seen come out differently. In the end however, a good product has
been fashioned, and I urge you to support it.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 2673
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2004, and for other purposes, namely:
TITLE I
AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS
Production, Processing, and Marketing
Office of the Secretary
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary of
Agriculture, $3,468,000: Provided, That not to exceed $11,000
of this amount shall be available for official reception and
representation expenses, not otherwise provided for, as
determined by the Secretary.
Executive Operations
chief economist
For necessary expenses of the Chief Economist, including
economic analysis, risk assessment, cost-benefit analysis,
energy and new uses, and the functions of the World
Agricultural Outlook Board, as authorized by the Agricultural
Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1622g), $8,716,000.
national appeals division
For necessary expenses of the National Appeals Division,
$13,670,000.
office of budget and program analysis
For necessary expenses of the Office of Budget and Program
Analysis, $7,749,000.
Office of the Chief Information Officer
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief
Information Officer, $14,993,000.
common computing environment
For necessary expenses to acquire a Common Computing
Environment for the Natural Resources Conservation Service,
the Farm and Foreign Agricultural Service, and the Rural
Development mission areas for information technology,
systems, and services, $133,155,000, to remain available
until expended, for the capital asset acquisition of shared
information technology systems, including services as
authorized by 7 U.S.C. 6915-16 and 40 U.S.C. 1421-28:
Provided, That obligation of these funds shall be consistent
with the Department of Agriculture Service Center
Modernization Plan of the county-based agencies, and shall be
with the concurrence of the Department's Chief Information
Officer.
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer, $5,785,000: Provided, That the Chief Financial
Officer shall actively market and expand cross-servicing
activities of the National Finance Center: Provided further,
That no funds made available by this appropriation may be
obligated for FAIR Act or Circular A-76 activities until the
Secretary has submitted to the Committees on Appropriations
of both Houses of Congress a report on the Department's
contracting out policies, including agency budgets for
contracting out.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, $397,000.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration
For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Administration, $678,000.
Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments
(including transfers of funds)
For payment of space rental and related costs pursuant to
Public Law 92-313, including authorities pursuant to the 1984
delegation of authority from the Administrator of General
Services to the Department of Agriculture under 40 U.S.C.
486, for programs and activities of the Department which are
included in this Act, and for alterations and other actions
needed for the Department and its agencies to consolidate
unneeded space into configurations suitable for release to
the Administrator of General Services, and for the operation,
maintenance, improvement, and repair of Agriculture buildings
and facilities, and for related costs, as follows: for
payments to the General Services Administration,
$124,332,000, for buildings operations and maintenance,
$32,559,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That not to exceed 5 percent of amounts which are made
available for space rental and related costs for the
Department of Agriculture in this Act may be transferred
between such appropriations to cover the costs of new or
replacement space 15 days after notice thereof is transmitted
to the Appropriations Committees of both Houses of Congress.
Hazardous Materials Management
(including transfers of funds)
For necessary expenses of the Department of Agriculture, to
comply with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) and
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et
seq.), $15,713,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That appropriations and funds available herein to
the Department for Hazardous Materials Management may be
transferred to any agency of the Department for its use in
meeting all requirements pursuant to the above Acts on
Federal and non-Federal lands.
Departmental Administration
(including transfers of funds)
For Departmental Administration, $38,592,000, to provide
for necessary expenses for management support services to
offices of the Department and for general administration,
security, repairs and alterations, and other miscellaneous
supplies and expenses not otherwise provided for and
necessary for the practical and efficient work of the
Department: Provided, That this appropriation shall be
reimbursed from applicable appropriations in this Act for
travel expenses incident to the holding of hearings as
required by 5 U.S.C. 551-558.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations
(including transfers of funds)
For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations to carry out
the programs funded by this Act, including programs involving
intergovernmental affairs and liaison within the executive
branch, $3,796,000: Provided, That these funds may be
transferred to agencies of the Department of Agriculture
funded by this Act to maintain personnel at the agency level:
Provided further, That no funds made available by this
appropriation may be obligated after 30 days from the date of
enactment of this Act, unless the Secretary has notified the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of
[[Page H6626]]
Congress on the allocation of these funds by USDA agency:
Provided further, That no other funds appropriated to the
Department by this Act shall be available to the Department
for support of activities of congressional relations.
Office of Communications
For necessary expenses to carry out services relating to
the coordination of programs involving public affairs, for
the dissemination of agricultural information, and the
coordination of information, work, and programs authorized by
Congress in the Department, $9,245,000: Provided, That not to
exceed $2,000,000 may be used for farmers' bulletins.
Office of the Inspector General
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Inspector
General, including employment pursuant to the Inspector
General Act of 1978, $77,314,000, including such sums as may
be necessary for contracting and other arrangements with
public agencies and private persons pursuant to section
6(a)(9) of the Inspector General Act of 1978, and including
not to exceed $125,000 for certain confidential operational
expenses as well as the payment of informants, to be expended
under the direction of the Inspector General pursuant to
Public Law 95-452 and section 1337 of Public Law 97-98.
Office of the General Counsel
For necessary expenses of the Office of the General
Counsel, $34,700,000.
Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics
For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics to
administer the laws enacted by the Congress for the Economic
Research Service, the National Agricultural Statistics
Service, the Agricultural Research Service, and the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service,
$597,000.
Economic Research Service
For necessary expenses of the Economic Research Service in
conducting economic research and analysis, as authorized by
the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627)
and other laws, $71,402,000.
National Agricultural Statistics Service
For necessary expenses of the National Agricultural
Statistics Service in conducting statistical reporting and
service work, including crop and livestock estimates,
statistical coordination and improvements, marketing surveys,
and the Census of Agriculture, as authorized by 7 U.S.C.
1621-1627 and 2204g, and other laws, $129,800,000, of which
up to $25,279,000 shall be available until expended for the
Census of Agriculture.
Agricultural Research Service
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses to enable the Agricultural Research
Service to perform agricultural research and demonstration
relating to production, utilization, marketing, and
distribution (not otherwise provided for); home economics or
nutrition and consumer use including the acquisition,
preservation, and dissemination of agricultural information;
and for acquisition of lands by donation, exchange, or
purchase at a nominal cost not to exceed $100, and for land
exchanges where the lands exchanged shall be of equal value
or shall be equalized by a payment of money to the grantor
which shall not exceed 25 percent of the total value of the
land or interests transferred out of Federal ownership,
$1,014,000,000: Provided, That appropriations hereunder shall
be available for the operation and maintenance of aircraft
and the purchase of not to exceed one for replacement only:
Provided further, That appropriations hereunder shall be
available pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2250 for the construction,
alteration, and repair of buildings and improvements, but
unless otherwise provided, the cost of constructing any one
building shall not exceed $375,000, except for headhouses or
greenhouses which shall each be limited to $1,200,000, and
except for 10 buildings to be constructed or improved at a
cost not to exceed $750,000 each, and the cost of altering
any one building during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10
percent of the current replacement value of the building or
$375,000, whichever is greater: Provided further, That the
limitations on alterations contained in this Act shall not
apply to modernization or replacement of existing facilities
at Beltsville, Maryland: Provided further, That
appropriations hereunder shall be available for granting
easements at the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center:
Provided further, That the foregoing limitations shall not
apply to replacement of buildings needed to carry out the Act
of April 24, 1948 (21 U.S.C. 113a): Provided further, That
funds may be received from any State, other political
subdivision, organization, or individual for the purpose of
establishing or operating any research facility or research
project of the Agricultural Research Service, as authorized
by law.
None of the funds appropriated under this heading shall be
available to carry out research related to the production,
processing, or marketing of tobacco or tobacco products.
buildings and facilities
For acquisition of land, construction, repair, improvement,
extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or
facilities as necessary to carry out the agricultural
research programs of the Department of Agriculture, where not
otherwise provided, $35,900,000, to remain available until
expended.
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
research and education activities
For payments to agricultural experiment stations, for
cooperative forestry and other research, for facilities, and
for other expenses, $594,772,000, as follows: to carry out
the provisions of the Hatch Act of 1887 (7 U.S.C. 361a-i),
$180,148,000; for grants for cooperative forestry research
(16 U.S.C. 582a through a-7), $21,884,000; for payments to
the 1890 land-grant colleges, including Tuskegee University
and West Virginia State College (7 U.S.C. 3222), $36,000,000,
of which $1,507,496 shall be made available only for the
purpose of ensuring that each institution shall receive no
less than $1,000,000; for special grants for agricultural
research (7 U.S.C. 450i(c)), $101,241,000; for special grants
for agricultural research on improved pest control (7 U.S.C.
450i(c)), $15,194,000; for competitive research grants (7
U.S.C. 450i(b)), $149,248,000; for the support of animal
health and disease programs (7 U.S.C. 3195), $5,065,000; for
supplemental and alternative crops and products (7 U.S.C.
3319d), $1,188,000; for the 1994 research grants program for
1994 institutions pursuant to section 536 of Public Law 103-
382 (7 U.S.C. 301 note), $998,000, to remain available until
expended; for rangeland research grants (7 U.S.C. 3333),
$1,000,000; for higher education graduate fellowship grants
(7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(6)), $3,222,000, to remain available until
expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b); for higher education challenge
grants (7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(1)), $4,888,000; for a higher
education multicultural scholars program (7 U.S.C.
3152(b)(5)), $992,000, to remain available until expended;
for an education grants program for Hispanic-serving
Institutions (7 U.S.C. 3241), $4,073,000; for noncompetitive
grants for the purpose of carrying out all provisions of 7
U.S.C. 3242 (section 759 of Public Law 106-78) to individual
eligible institutions or consortia of eligible institutions
in Alaska and in Hawaii, with funds awarded equally to each
of the States of Alaska and Hawaii, $2,997,000; for a
secondary agriculture education program and 2-year post-
secondary education (7 U.S.C. 3152(j)), $994,000; for
aquaculture grants (7 U.S.C. 3322), $3,996,000; for
sustainable agriculture research and education (7 U.S.C.
5811), $13,661,000; for a program of capacity building grants
(7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(4)) to colleges eligible to receive funds
under the Act of August 30, 1890 (7 U.S.C. 321-326 and 328),
including Tuskegee University and West Virginia State
College, $9,479,000, to remain available until expended (7
U.S.C. 2209b); for payments to the 1994 Institutions pursuant
to section 534(a)(1) of Public Law 103-382, $1,689,000; and
for necessary expenses of Research and Education Activities,
$36,815,000.
None of the funds appropriated under this heading shall be
available to carry out research related to the production,
processing, or marketing of tobacco or tobacco products:
Provided, That this paragraph shall not apply to research on
the medical, biotechnological, food, and industrial uses of
tobacco.
native american institutions endowment fund
For the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund
authorized by Public Law 103-382 (7 U.S.C. 301 note),
$9,000,000.
extension activities
For payments to States, the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, Micronesia, Northern
Marianas, and American Samoa, $438,242,000, as follows:
payments for cooperative extension work under the Smith-Lever
Act, to be distributed under sections 3(b) and 3(c) of said
Act, and under section 208(c) of Public Law 93-471, for
retirement and employees' compensation costs for extension
agents, $275,940,000; payments for extension work at the 1994
Institutions under the Smith-Lever Act (7 U.S.C. 343(b)(3)),
$3,273,000; payments for the nutrition and family education
program for low-income areas under section 3(d) of the Act,
$58,185,000; payments for the pest management program under
section 3(d) of the Act, $10,689,000; payments for the farm
safety program under section 3(d) of the Act, $5,489,000;
payments to upgrade research, extension, and teaching
facilities at the 1890 land-grant colleges, including
Tuskegee University and West Virginia State College, as
authorized by section 1447 of Public Law 95-113 (7 U.S.C.
3222b), $13,500,000, to remain available until expended;
payments for youth-at-risk programs under section 3(d) of the
Smith-Lever Act, $8,426,000; for youth farm safety education
and certification extension grants, to be awarded
competitively under section 3(d) of the Act, $496,000;
payments for carrying out the provisions of the Renewable
Resources Extension Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 1671 et seq.),
$4,093,000; payments for Indian reservation agents under
section 3(d) of the Smith-Lever Act, $1,983,000; payments for
sustainable agriculture programs under section 3(d) of the
Act, $4,843,000; payments for cooperative extension work by
the colleges receiving the benefits of the second Morrill Act
(7 U.S.C. 321-326 and 328) and Tuskegee University and West
Virginia State College, $31,908,000, of which $1,724,884
shall be made available only for the purpose of ensuring that
each institution shall receive no less than $1,000,000; and
for necessary expenses of extension activities, $19,417,000.
integrated activities
For the integrated research, education, and extension
grants programs, including necessary administrative expenses,
[[Page H6627]]
$62,942,000, as follows: for competitive grants programs
authorized under section 406 of the Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7626),
$43,942,000, including $12,887,000 for the water quality
program, $14,870,000 for the food safety program, $4,501,000
for the regional pest management centers program, $4,857,000
for the Food Quality Protection Act risk mitigation program
for major food crop systems, $1,487,000 for the crops
affected by Food Quality Protection Act implementation,
$3,229,000 for the methyl bromide transition program, and
$2,111,000 for the organic transition program; for a
competitive international science and education grants
program authorized under section 1459A of the National
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of
1977 (7 U.S.C. 3292b), to remain available until expended,
$1,000,000; for grants programs authorized under section
2(c)(1)(B) of Public Law 89-106, as amended, $2,000,000,
including $497,000, to remain available until September 30,
2005 for the critical issues program, and $1,503,000 for the
regional rural development centers program; and $16,000,000
for the homeland security program authorized under section
1484 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Teaching Act of 1977, to remain available until September 30,
2005.
outreach for socially disadvantaged farmers
For grants and contracts pursuant to section 2501 of the
Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7
U.S.C. 2279), $3,470,000, to remain available until expended.
Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs
For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs to
administer programs under the laws enacted by the Congress
for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; the
Agricultural Marketing Service; and the Grain Inspection,
Packers and Stockyards Administration; $725,000.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Salaries and Expenses
(including transfers of funds)
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary to
prevent, control, and eradicate pests and plant and animal
diseases; to carry out inspection, quarantine, and regulatory
activities; and to protect the environment, as authorized by
law, $725,502,000, of which $4,139,000 shall be available for
the control of outbreaks of insects, plant diseases, animal
diseases and for control of pest animals and birds to the
extent necessary to meet emergency conditions; of which
$51,000,000 shall be used for the boll weevil eradication
program for cost share purposes or for debt retirement for
active eradication zones: Provided, That no funds shall be
used to formulate or administer a brucellosis eradication
program for the current fiscal year that does not require
minimum matching by the States of at least 40 percent:
Provided further, That this appropriation shall be available
for the operation and maintenance of aircraft and the
purchase of not to exceed four, of which two shall be for
replacement only: Provided further, That, in addition, in
emergencies which threaten any segment of the agricultural
production industry of this country, the Secretary may
transfer from other appropriations or funds available to the
agencies or corporations of the Department such sums as may
be deemed necessary, to be available only in such emergencies
for the arrest and eradication of contagious or infectious
disease or pests of animals, poultry, or plants, and for
expenses in accordance with sections 10411 and 10417 of the
Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8310 and 8316) and
sections 431 and 442 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C.
7751 and 7772), and any unexpended balances of funds
transferred for such emergency purposes in the preceding
fiscal year shall be merged with such transferred amounts:
Provided further, That appropriations hereunder shall be
available pursuant to law (7 U.S.C. 2250) for the repair and
alteration of leased buildings and improvements, but unless
otherwise provided the cost of altering any one building
during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10 percent of the
current replacement value of the building.
In fiscal year 2004, the agency is authorized to collect
fees to cover the total costs of providing technical
assistance, goods, or services requested by States, other
political subdivisions, domestic and international
organizations, foreign governments, or individuals, provided
that such fees are structured such that any entity's
liability for such fees is reasonably based on the technical
assistance, goods, or services provided to the entity by the
agency, and such fees shall be credited to this account, to
remain available until expended, without further
appropriation, for providing such assistance, goods, or
services.
buildings and facilities
For plans, construction, repair, preventive maintenance,
environmental support, improvement, extension, alteration,
and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities, as authorized
by 7 U.S.C. 2250, and acquisition of land as authorized by 7
U.S.C. 428a, $4,996,000, to remain available until expended.
Agricultural Marketing Service
Marketing Services
For necessary expenses to carry out services related to
consumer protection, agricultural marketing and distribution,
transportation, and regulatory programs, as authorized by
law, and for administration and coordination of payments to
States, $75,953,000, including funds for the wholesale market
development program for the design and development of
wholesale and farmer market facilities for the major
metropolitan areas of the country: Provided, That this
appropriation shall be available pursuant to law (7 U.S.C.
2250) for the alteration and repair of buildings and
improvements, but the cost of altering any one building
during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10 percent of the
current replacement value of the building.
Fees may be collected for the cost of standardization
activities, as established by regulation pursuant to law (31
U.S.C. 9701).
limitation on administrative expenses
Not to exceed $62,577,000 (from fees collected) shall be
obligated during the current fiscal year for administrative
expenses: Provided, That if crop size is understated and/or
other uncontrollable events occur, the agency may exceed this
limitation by up to 10 percent with notification to the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
funds for strengthening markets, income, and supply (section 32)
(including transfers of funds)
Funds available under section 32 of the Act of August 24,
1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c), shall be used only for commodity
program expenses as authorized therein, and other related
operating expenses, except for: (1) transfers to the
Department of Commerce as authorized by the Fish and Wildlife
Act of August 8, 1956; (2) transfers otherwise provided in
this Act; and (3) not more than $15,392,000 for formulation
and administration of marketing agreements and orders
pursuant to the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937
and the Agricultural Act of 1961.
payments to states and possessions
For payments to departments of agriculture, bureaus and
departments of markets, and similar agencies for marketing
activities under section 204(b) of the Agricultural Marketing
Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1623(b)), $1,347,000.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the
United States Grain Standards Act, for the administration of
the Packers and Stockyards Act, for certifying procedures
used to protect purchasers of farm products, and the
standardization activities related to grain under the
Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, $39,690,000: Provided,
That this appropriation shall be available pursuant to law (7
U.S.C. 2250) for the alteration and repair of buildings and
improvements, but the cost of altering any one building
during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10 percent of the
current replacement value of the building.
limitation on inspection and weighing services expenses
Not to exceed $42,463,000 (from fees collected) shall be
obligated during the current fiscal year for inspection and
weighing services: Provided, That if grain export activities
require additional supervision and oversight, or other
uncontrollable factors occur, this limitation may be exceeded
by up to 10 percent with notification to the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety
For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Under Secretary for Food Safety to administer the laws
enacted by the Congress for the Food Safety and Inspection
Service, $599,000.
Food Safety and Inspection Service
For necessary expenses to carry out services authorized by
the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products
Inspection Act, and the Egg Products Inspection Act,
including not to exceed $50,000 for representation allowances
and for expenses pursuant to section 8 of the Act approved
August 3, 1956 (7 U.S.C. 1766), $785,261,000; and in
addition, $1,000,000 may be credited to this account from
fees collected for the cost of laboratory accreditation as
authorized by section 1327 of the Food, Agriculture,
Conservation and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 138f): Provided,
That this appropriation shall be available pursuant to law (7
U.S.C. 2250) for the alteration and repair of buildings and
improvements, but the cost of altering any one building
during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10 percent of the
current replacement value of the building.
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, $636,000.
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, $1,016,836,000: Provided, That the Secretary
of Agriculture 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
[[Page H6628]]
further, That other funds made available to the Agency for
authorized activities may be advanced to and merged with this
account.
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),
$3,974,000.
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, $1,083,143,000, of
which $950,000,000 shall be for guaranteed loans and
$133,143,000 shall be for direct loans; operating loans,
$2,200,440,000, of which $1,330,000,000 shall be for
unsubsidized guaranteed loans, $252,937,000 shall be for
subsidized guaranteed loans and $617,503,000 shall be for
direct loans; Indian tribe land acquisition loans as
authorized by 25 U.S.C. 488, $2,000,000; 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, $34,528,000, of which $5,130,000 shall be for
guaranteed loans, and $29,398,000 shall be for direct loans;
operating loans, $165,633,000, of which $44,289,000 shall be
for unsubsidized guaranteed loans, $32,300,000 shall be for
subsidized guaranteed loans, and $89,044,000 shall be for
direct loans.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $298,136,000, of
which $290,136,000 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 Committees on
Appropriations 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
section 226A of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization
Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6933), $71,509,000: Provided, That not
to exceed $1,000 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, 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 (7 U.S.C. 1516), such sums as may be
necessary, to remain available until expended.
Commodity Credit Corporation Fund
reimbursement for net realized losses
For the current fiscal year, 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).
hazardous waste management
(limitation on expenses)
For the current fiscal year, 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,
$745,000.
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, $850,004,000, to remain available
until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b), of which not less than
$9,215,000 is for snow survey and water forecasting, and not
less than $11,722,000 is for operation and establishment of
the plant materials centers, and of which not less than
$23,500,000 shall be for the grazing lands conservation
initiative: Provided, 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 qualified
local engineers may be temporarily employed at per diem rates
to perform the technical planning work of the Service:
Provided further, That none of the funds made available under
this paragraph by this or any other appropriations Act may be
used to provide technical assistance with respect to programs
listed in section 1241(a) of the Food Security Act of 1985
(16 U.S.C. 3841(a)).
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 (16 U.S.C. 1001-1009), $11,124,000: Provided, That none
of the funds made available under this paragraph by this or
any other appropriations Act may be used to provide technical
assistance with respect to programs listed in section 1241(a)
of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3841(a)).
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 (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, $90,000,000, to remain
available until expended of which up to $10,000,000 shall be
available for the watersheds authorized under the Flood
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 701 and 16 U.S.C. 1006a): Provided,
That not to exceed $40,000,000 of this appropriation shall be
made available for technical assistance: 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: Provided further,
That the amount of federal funds that may be made available
to an eligible local organization for construction of a
particular rehabilitation project shall be equal to 65
percent of the total rehabilitation costs, but not to exceed
100 percent of actual construction costs incurred in the
rehabilitation: Provided further, That consistent with
existing statute, rehabilitation assistance provided may not
be used to perform operation and maintenance activities
specified in the agreement for the covered water resource
projects entered into between the Secretary and the eligible
local organization responsible for the works of improvement:
Provided further, That none of the funds made available under
this paragraph by this or any other appropriations Act may be
used to provide technical assistance with respect to programs
listed in section 1241(a) of the Food Security Act of 1985
(16 U.S.C. 3841(a)).
watershed rehabilitation program
For necessary expenses to carry out rehabilitation of
structural measures, in accordance with section 14 of the
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, as amended,
(16 U.S.C. 1012), and in accordance with the provisions of
laws relating to the activities of the Department,
$40,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That none of the funds made available under this paragraph by
this or any other appropriations Act may be used to provide
technical assistance with respect to programs listed in
section 1241(a) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3841(a)).
[[Page H6629]]
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 sections 31 and
32(l) 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 subtitle H of title XV of the
Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3451-3461),
$52,894,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That none of the funds made available under this paragraph by
this or any other appropriations Act may be used to provide
technical assistance with respect to programs listed in
section 1241(a) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3841(a)): Provided further, That a cooperative or
contribution agreement with a national association regarding
a Resource Conservation and Development program shall contain
the same matching, contribution requirements, and funding
level, set forth in a similar cooperative or contribution
agreement with a national association in fiscal year 2002:
Provided further, That not to exceed $3,504,300, the same
amount as in the budget, shall be available for national
headquarters activities.
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,
$636,000.
rural community advancement program
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 and 381N of the Consolidated
Farm and Rural Development Act, $706,006,000, to remain
available until expended, of which $27,000,000 shall be for
rural community programs described in section 381E(d)(1) of
such Act; of which $605,006,000 shall be for the rural
utilities programs described in sections 381E(d)(2),
306C(a)(2), and 306D of such Act, of which not to exceed
$500,000 shall be available for the rural utilities program
described in section 306(a)(2)(B) of such Act, and of which
not to exceed $1,000,000 shall be available for the rural
utilities program described in section 306E of such Act; and
of which $74,000,000 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, $13,000,000 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,
nonprofit 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: Provided further, That
of the amount appropriated for rural utilities programs, not
to exceed $25,000,000 shall be for water and waste disposal
systems to benefit the Colonias along the United States/
Mexico border, including grants pursuant to section 306C of
such Act; not to exceed $17,465,000 shall be for technical
assistance grants for rural water and waste systems pursuant
to section 306(a)(14) of such Act, of which $5,513,000 shall
be for Rural Community Assistance Programs and not to exceed
$13,000,000 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
$22,132,000 shall be available through June 30, 2004, for
authorized empowerment zones and enterprise communities and
communities designated by the Secretary of Agriculture as
Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones; of which $1,000,000
shall be for the rural community programs described in
section 381E(d)(1) of such Act, of which $12,582,000 shall be
for the rural utilities programs described in section
381E(d)(2) of such Act, and of which $8,550,000 shall be for
the rural business and cooperative development programs
described in section 381E(d)(3) of such Act.
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; $146,495,000:
Provided, 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 appropriation.
Rural Housing Service
rural housing insurance fund program account
(including transfers 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: $4,091,634,000 for loans to
section 502 borrowers, as determined by the Secretary, of
which $1,366,462,000 shall be for direct loans, and of which
not more than $2,725,172,000 shall be for unsubsidized
guaranteed loans; $35,003,000 for section 504 housing repair
loans; $116,545,000 for section 515 rental housing;
$100,000,000 for section 538 guaranteed multi-family housing
loans; $5,045,000 for section 524 site loans; $11,500,000 for
credit sales of acquired property, of which up to $1,500,000
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, $165,921,000, of which $126,018,000 shall be for
direct loans, and of which $39,903,000, to remain available
until expended, shall be for unsubsidized guaranteed loans;
section 504 housing repair loans, $9,612,000; section 515
rental housing, $50,126,000 of which $20,086,400 shall be for
repair and rehabilitation, and $30,039,600 shall be for new
construction; section 538 multi-family housing guaranteed
loans, $5,950,000; multi-family credit sales of acquired
property, $663,000; and section 523 self-help housing land
development loans, $154,000: Provided, That of the total
amount appropriated in this paragraph, $7,100,000 shall be
available through June 30, 2004, 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, $447,151,000,
which shall be transferred to and merged with the
appropriation for ``Rural Development, Salaries and
Expenses''.
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, $731,000,000; 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 the current fiscal
year 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 U.S.C. 1490c), $34,772,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That of the total
amount appropriated, $1,000,000 shall be available through
June 30, 2004, 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, $42,222,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That of the total amount
appropriated, $1,800,000 shall be available through June 30,
2004, for authorized empowerment zones and enterprise
communities and communities designated by the
[[Page H6630]]
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, $36,307,000, 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)),
$40,000,000.
For the cost of direct loans, $17,308,000, as authorized by
the Rural Development Loan Fund (42 U.S.C. 9812(a)), of which
$1,724,000 shall be available through June 30, 2004, for
Federally Recognized Native American Tribes and of which
$3,449,000 shall be available through June 30, 2004, 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
of the total amount appropriated, $2,447,000 shall be
available through June 30, 2004, 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, $4,283,000 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, $16,120,000.
For the cost of direct loans, including the cost of
modifying loans as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, $3,000,000.
Of the funds derived from interest on the cushion of credit
payments in the current fiscal year, as authorized by section
313 of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, $3,000,000
shall not be obligated and $3,000,000 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), $13,000,000, of which
$2,500,000 shall be for cooperative agreements for the
appropriate technology transfer for rural areas program:
Provided, That not to exceed $1,500,000 shall be for
cooperatives or associations of cooperatives whose primary
focus is to provide assistance to small, minority producers,
of which not to exceed $500,000 shall be for cooperative
research agreements; and of which not to exceed $4,000,000,
to remain available until expended, shall be for value-added
agricultural product market development grants, as authorized
by section 6401 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act
of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 1621 note).
rural empowerment zones and enterprise communities grants
For grants in connection with a second round of empowerment
zones and enterprise communities, $10,967,000, to remain
available until expended, for designated rural empowerment
zones and rural enterprise communities, as authorized by the
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 and the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law
105-277).
renewable energy program
For the cost of direct loans and grants, as authorized by
section 9006 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of
2002 (7 U.S.C. 8106), $3,000,000 for direct renewable energy
loans and grants: Provided, That the cost of direct loans and
loan guarantees, including the cost of modifying such loans,
shall be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974.
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,
$240,000,000; municipal rate rural electric loans,
$1,000,000,000; loans made pursuant to section 306 of that
Act, rural electric, $2,000,000,000; Treasury rate direct
electric loans, $750,000,000; 5 percent rural
telecommunication loans, $145,000,000; cost of money rural
telecommunication loans, $300,000,000; and loans made
pursuant to section 306 of that Act, rural telecommunication
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
sections 305 and 306 of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936
(7 U.S.C. 935 and 936), as follows: cost of rural electric
loans, $60,000, and the cost of telecommunication loans,
$125,000: 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, $38,166,000
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.
For administrative expenses, including audits, necessary to
carry out the loan programs and continue to service existing
loans, $3,182,000, to be derived by transfer from the
shareholder's equity, contained in the unobligated balances
in the Rural Telephone Bank Liquidating Account, which shall
be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for
``Rural Development, Salaries and Expenses''.
distance learning, telemedicine, and Broadband Program
For the principal amount of direct distance learning and
telemedicine loans, $300,000,000; and for the principal
amount of broadband telecommunication loans, $336,000,000.
For grants for telemedicine and distance learning services
in rural areas, as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 950aaa et seq.,
$25,000,000, to remain available until expended.
For the cost of direct and guaranteed broadband loans, as
authorized by 7 U.S.C. 901, et seq., $9,116,000: Provided,
That the cost of direct loans shall be as defined in section
502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
In addition, $8,000,000, to remain available until
expended, for a grant program to finance broadband
transmission in areas that meet the definition of ``rural
area'' used for the Broadband Loan Program authorized by 7
U.S.C. 901.
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, $599,000.
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; $11,418,441,000, to remain
available through September 30, 2005, of which $6,718,780,000
is hereby appropriated and $4,699,661,000 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 $6,000,000
shall be available for the Food and Nutrition Service to
conduct a study of certification error and its effect on
expenditures in the National School Lunch and School
Breakfast Programs and an assessment of the feasibility of
using income data matching in those Programs: Provided
further, 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 $5,235,000 shall be available for independent
verification of school food service claims.
special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children
(wic)
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),
$4,588,310,000, to remain available through September 30,
2005, of which $20,000,000 shall be for a breastfeeding
support initiative in addition to the activities specified in
section 17(h)(3)(A); $25,000,000 shall be for a management
information system initiative; and $25,000,000, to remain
available until expended, shall be placed in reserve for use
in only such amounts, and in such manner, as the Secretary
determines necessary, notwithstanding section 17(i) of the
Child Nutrition Act, to provide funds to support
participation, should costs or participation exceed budget
estimates: Provided, That notwithstanding section
17(h)(10)(A) of such Act, $14,000,000 shall be available for
the purposes specified in section 17(h)(10)(B): Provided
further, That notwithstanding section 17(g)(5) of such Act,
$4,000,000 shall be available for pilot projects to prevent
childhood obesity: Provided further, That none of the funds
made available under this heading shall be used for studies
and evaluations: 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.
[[Page H6631]]
food stamp program
For necessary expenses to carry out the Food Stamp Act (7
U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), $27,745,981,000, of which
$2,000,000,000 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.
commodity assistance program
For necessary expenses to carry out disaster assistance and
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); the Emergency Food Assistance
Act of 1983; special assistance for the nuclear affected
islands, as authorized by section 103(h)(2) of the Compacts
of Free Association Act of 1985; and the Farmers' Market
Nutrition Program, as authorized by section 17(m) of the
Child Nutrition Act of 1966, $166,072,000, to remain
available through September 30, 2005: Provided, That none of
these funds shall be available to reimburse the Commodity
Credit Corporation for commodities donated to the program.
nutrition programs administration
For necessary administrative expenses of the domestic
nutrition assistance programs funded under this Act,
$140,512,000, 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 $7,500,000 shall be available to improve integrity in
the Food Stamp and Child Nutrition programs.
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),
$133,924,000: 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.
public law 480 title I 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, $103,887,000,
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, $4,041,000, of which
$1,066,000 may be transferred to and merged with the
appropriation for ``Foreign Agricultural Service, Salaries
and Expenses'', and of which $2,975,000 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 transfer of funds)
For ocean freight differential costs for the shipment of
agricultural commodities under title I of the Agricultural
Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 and under the
Food for Progress Act of 1985, $28,000,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That funds made available
for the cost of agreements under title I of the Agricultural
Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 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 title ii grants
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, for commodities supplied in
connection with dispositions abroad under title II of said
Act, $1,192,000,000, to remain available until expended.
McGovern-Dole international food for education and child nutrition
program grants
For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of
section 3107 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of
2002 (7 U.S.C. 1736o-1), $56,874,000, to remain available
until expended.
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, $4,312,000; 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 $3,327,000 may be transferred to and
merged with the appropriation for ``Foreign Agricultural
Service, Salaries and Expenses'', and of which $985,000 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
(including transfers of funds)
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; 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; and notwithstanding
section 521 of Public Law 107-188; $1,668,249,000: Provided,
That of the amount provided under this heading, $249,825,000
shall be derived from prescription drug user fees authorized
by 21 U.S.C. 379h, and shall be credited to this account and
remain available until expended, and $29,190,000 shall be
derived from medical device user fees authorized by 21 U.S.C.
379j, and shall be credited to this account and remain
available until expended: Provided further, That fees derived
from prescription drug and medical device applications
received during fiscal year 2004 shall be subject to the
fiscal year 2004 limitation: Provided further, That any
prescription drug or medical device user fee collected in
fiscal year 2004 that exceeds this limitation shall be
credited to this account and remain available until expended,
in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 379h(g)(4) and 379j(h)(4):
Provided further, That none of these funds shall be used to
develop, establish, or operate any program of user fees
authorized by 31 U.S.C. 9701: Provided further, That of the
total amount appropriated: (1) $412,462,000 shall be for the
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition and related
field activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs; (2)
$478,650,000 shall be for the Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research and related field activities in the Office of
Regulatory Affairs, of which no less than $13,357,000 shall
be available for grants and contracts awarded under section 5
of the Orphan Drug Act (21 U.S.C. 360ee); (3) $168,836,000
shall be for the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research
and for related field activities in the Office of Regulatory
Affairs; (4) $84,646,000 shall be for the Center for
Veterinary Medicine and for related field activities in the
Office of Regulatory Affairs; (5) $209,285,000 shall be for
the Center for Devices and Radiological Health and for
related field activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs;
(6) $39,887,000 shall be for the National Center for
Toxicological Research; (7) $40,851,000 shall be for Rent and
Related activities, other than the amounts paid to the
General Services Administration for rent; (8) $119,795,000
shall be for payments to the General Services Administration
for rent; and (9) $113,837,000 shall be for other activities,
including the Office of the Commissioner; the Office of
Management and Systems; the Office of External Relations; the
Office of Policy and Planning; and central services for these
offices: Provided further, That funds may be transferred from
one specified activity to another with the prior approval of
the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
In addition, mammography user fees authorized by 42 U.S.C.
263b may be credited to this account, to remain available
until expended.
In addition, export certification user fees authorized by
21 U.S.C. 381 may be credited to this account, to remain
available until expended.
buildings and facilities
For plans, construction, repair, improvement, extension,
alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities of
or used by the Food and Drug Administration, where not
otherwise provided, $6,000,000 to remain available until
expended.
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the
Commodity Exchange Act
[[Page H6632]]
(7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), including the purchase and hire of
passenger motor vehicles, and the rental of space (to include
multiple year leases) in the District of Columbia and
elsewhere, $88,435,000, including not to exceed $3,000 for
official reception and representation expenses.
FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION
limitation on administrative expenses
Not to exceed $40,900,000 (from assessments collected from
farm credit institutions and from the Federal Agricultural
Mortgage Corporation) shall be obligated during the current
fiscal year for administrative expenses as authorized under
12 U.S.C. 2249: Provided, That this limitation shall not
apply to expenses associated with receiverships.
TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 701. Within the unit limit of cost fixed by law,
appropriations and authorizations made for the Department of
Agriculture for the current fiscal year under this Act shall
be available for the purchase, in addition to those
specifically provided for, of not to exceed 398 passenger
motor vehicles, of which 396 shall be for replacement only,
and for the hire of such vehicles.
Sec. 702. Funds in this Act available to the Department of
Agriculture shall be available for uniforms or allowances
therefor as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902).
Sec. 703. Funds appropriated by this Act shall be available
for employment pursuant to the second sentence of section
706(a) of the Department of Agriculture Organic Act of 1944
(7 U.S.C. 2225) and 5 U.S.C. 3109.
Sec. 704. The Secretary of Agriculture may transfer
unobligated balances of discretionary funds appropriated by
this Act or other available unobligated discretionary
balances of the Department of Agriculture to the Working
Capital Fund for the acquisition of plant and capital
equipment necessary for the delivery of financial,
administrative, and information technology services of
primary benefit to the agencies of the Department of
Agriculture: Provided, That none of the funds made available
by this Act or any other Act shall be transferred to the
Working Capital Fund without the prior approval of the agency
administrator: Provided further, That none of the funds
transferred to the Working Capital Fund pursuant to this
section shall be available for obligation without the prior
approval of the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses
of Congress.
Sec. 705. New obligational authority provided for the
following appropriation items in this Act shall remain
available until expended: Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, the contingency fund to meet emergency conditions,
information technology infrastructure, fruit fly program,
emerging plant pests, boll weevil program, and up to 25
percent of the screwworm program; Food Safety and Inspection
Service, field automation and information management project;
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service,
funds for competitive research grants (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)),
funds for the Research, Education, and Economics Information
System (REEIS), and funds for the Native American
Institutions Endowment Fund; Farm Service Agency, salaries
and expenses funds made available to county committees;
Foreign Agricultural Service, middle-income country training
program and up to $2,000,000 of the Foreign Agricultural
Service appropriation solely for the purpose of offsetting
fluctuations in international currency exchange rates,
subject to documentation by the Foreign Agricultural Service.
Sec. 706. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 707. Not to exceed $50,000 of the appropriations
available to the Department of Agriculture in this Act shall
be available to provide appropriate orientation and language
training pursuant to section 606C of the Act of August 28,
1954 (7 U.S.C. 1766b).
Sec. 708. No funds appropriated by this Act may be used to
pay negotiated indirect cost rates on cooperative agreements
or similar arrangements between the United States Department
of Agriculture and nonprofit institutions in excess of 10
percent of the total direct cost of the agreement when the
purpose of such cooperative arrangements is to carry out
programs of mutual interest between the two parties. This
does not preclude appropriate payment of indirect costs on
grants and contracts with such institutions when such
indirect costs are computed on a similar basis for all
agencies for which appropriations are provided in this Act.
Sec. 709. None of the funds in this Act shall be available
to restrict the authority of the Commodity Credit Corporation
to lease space for its own use or to lease space on behalf of
other agencies of the Department of Agriculture when such
space will be jointly occupied.
Sec. 710. None of the funds in this Act shall be available
to pay indirect costs charged against competitive
agricultural research, education, or extension grant awards
issued by the Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service that exceed 20 percent of total Federal
funds provided under each award: Provided, That
notwithstanding section 1462 of the National Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7
U.S.C. 3310), funds provided by this Act for grants awarded
competitively by the Cooperative State Research, Education,
and Extension Service shall be available to pay full
allowable indirect costs for each grant awarded under section
9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638).
Sec. 711. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
all loan levels provided in this Act shall be considered
estimates, not limitations.
Sec. 712. Appropriations to the Department of Agriculture
for the cost of direct and guaranteed loans made available in
the current fiscal year shall remain available until expended
to cover obligations made in the current fiscal year for the
following accounts: the Rural Development Loan Fund program
account, the Rural Telephone Bank program account, the Rural
Electrification and Telecommunication Loans program account,
the Rural Housing Insurance Fund program account, and the
Rural Economic Development Loans program account.
Sec. 713. None of the funds in this Act may be used to
retire more than 5 percent of the Class A stock of the Rural
Telephone Bank or to maintain any account or subaccount
within the accounting records of the Rural Telephone Bank the
creation of which has not specifically been authorized by
statute: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision
of law, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available in this Act may be used to transfer to the Treasury
or to the Federal Financing Bank any unobligated balance of
the Rural Telephone Bank telephone liquidating account which
is in excess of current requirements and such balance shall
receive interest as set forth for financial accounts in
section 505(c) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990.
Sec. 714. Of the funds made available by this Act, not more
than $1,800,000 shall be used to cover necessary expenses of
activities related to all advisory committees, panels,
commissions, and task forces of the Department of
Agriculture, except for panels used to comply with negotiated
rule makings and panels used to evaluate competitively
awarded grants.
Sec. 715. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used to carry out section 410 of the Federal Meat Inspection
Act (21 U.S.C. 679a) or section 30 of the Poultry Products
Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 471).
Sec. 716. No employee of the Department of Agriculture may
be detailed or assigned from an agency or office funded by
this Act to any other agency or office of the Department for
more than 30 days unless the individual's employing agency or
office is fully reimbursed by the receiving agency or office
for the salary and expenses of the employee for the period of
assignment.
Sec. 717. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available to the Department of Agriculture shall be used to
transmit or otherwise make available to any non-Department of
Agriculture employee questions or responses to questions that
are a result of information requested for the appropriations
hearing process.
Sec. 718. None of the funds made available to the
Department of Agriculture by this Act may be used to acquire
new information technology systems or significant upgrades,
as determined by the Office of the Chief Information Officer,
without the approval of the Chief Information Officer and the
concurrence of the Executive Information Technology
Investment Review Board: Provided, That notwithstanding any
other provision of law, none of the funds appropriated or
otherwise made available by this Act may be transferred to
the Office of the Chief Information Officer without the prior
approval of the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses
of Congress.
Sec. 719. (a) None of the funds provided by this Act, or
provided by previous Appropriations Acts to the agencies
funded by this Act that remain available for obligation or
expenditure in the current fiscal year, or provided from any
accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the
collection of fees available to the agencies funded by this
Act, shall be available for obligation or expenditure through
a reprogramming of funds which: (1) creates new programs; (2)
eliminates a program, project, or activity; (3) increases
funds or personnel by any means for any project or activity
for which funds have been denied or restricted; (4) relocates
an office or employees; (5) reorganizes offices, programs, or
activities; or (6) contracts out or privatizes any functions
or activities presently performed by Federal employees;
unless the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of
Congress are notified 15 days in advance of such
reprogramming of funds.
(b) None of the funds provided by this Act, or provided by
previous Appropriations Acts to the agencies funded by this
Act that remain available for obligation or expenditure in
the current fiscal year, or provided from any accounts in the
Treasury of the United States derived by the collection of
fees available to the agencies funded by this Act, shall be
available for obligation or expenditure for activities,
programs, or projects through a reprogramming of funds in
excess of $500,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, that:
(1) augments existing programs, projects, or activities; (2)
reduces by 10 percent funding for any existing program,
project, or activity, or numbers of personnel by 10 percent
as approved by Congress; or (3) results from any general
savings from a reduction in personnel which would result in a
change in existing programs, activities, or projects as
approved by Congress; unless the Committees on Appropriations
of both Houses of Congress are notified 15 days in advance of
such reprogramming of funds.
(c) The Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Health
and Human Services, or the Chairman of the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission shall notify the Committees
[[Page H6633]]
on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress before
implementing a program or activity not carried out during the
previous fiscal year unless the program or activity is funded
by this Act or specifically funded by any other Act.
Sec. 720. With the exception of funds needed to administer
and conduct oversight of grants awarded and obligations
incurred in prior fiscal years, none of the funds
appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other
Act may be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel
to carry out the provisions of section 401 of Public Law 105-
185, the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems
(7 U.S.C. 7621).
Sec. 721. None of the funds appropriated by this Act or any
other Act shall be used to pay the salaries and expenses of
personnel who prepare or submit appropriations language as
part of the President's Budget submission to the Congress of
the United States for programs under the jurisdiction of the
Appropriations Subcommittees on Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies that assumes revenues or reflects a reduction from
the previous year due to user fees proposals that have not
been enacted into law prior to the submission of the Budget
unless such Budget submission identifies which additional
spending reductions should occur in the event the user fees
proposals are not enacted prior to the date of the convening
of a committee of conference for the fiscal year 2005
appropriations Act.
Sec. 722. None of the funds made available by this Act or
any other Act may be used to close or relocate a state Rural
Development office unless or until cost effectiveness and
enhancement of program delivery have been determined.
Sec. 723. In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated or
made available by this Act, $3,000,000 is appropriated for
the purpose of providing Bill Emerson and Mickey Leland
Hunger Fellowships, as authorized by section 4404 of Public
Law 107-171 (2 U.S.C. 1161).
Sec. 724. Notwithstanding section 412 of the Agricultural
Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C.
1736f), any balances available to carry out title III of such
Act as of the date of enactment of this Act, and any
recoveries and reimbursements that become available to carry
out title III of such Act, may be used to carry out title II
of such Act.
Sec. 725. Section 375(e)(6)(B) of the Consolidated Farm and
Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2008j(e)(6)(B)) is amended by
striking ``$26,499,000'' and inserting ``$26,998,000''.
Sec. 726. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Natural Resources Conservation Service may provide financial
and technical assistance through the Watershed and Flood
Prevention Operations program for the Ditch 26 project in
Arkansas.
Sec. 727. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary shall consider the County of Lawrence, Ohio; the
City of Havelock, North Carolina; the City of Portsmouth,
Ohio; the City of Atascadero, California; the City of
Binghamton, New York; the Town of Vestal, New York; the City
of Ithaca, New York; the City of Casa Grande, Arizona; and
the City of Clarksdale, Mississippi, as meeting the
eligibility requirements for loans and grants programs in the
Rural Development mission area.
Sec. 728. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Natural Resources Conservation Service shall provide
financial and technical assistance to the DuPage County,
Illinois, Kress Creek Watershed Plan, from funds available
for the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations program,
not to exceed $1,600,000 and Rockhouse Creek Watershed,
Leslie County, Kentucky, not to exceed $1,000,000.
Sec. 729. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality
of the United States Government, except pursuant to a
transfer made by, or transfer authority provided in, this Act
or any other appropriation Act.
Sec. 730. Agencies and offices of the Department of
Agriculture may utilize any unobligated salaries and expenses
funds to reimburse the Office of the General Counsel for
salaries and expenses of personnel, and for other related
expenses, incurred in representing such agencies and offices
in the resolution of complaints by employees or applicants
for employment, and in cases and other matters pending before
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Federal
Labor Relations Authority, or the Merit Systems Protection
Board with the prior approval of the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
Sec. 731. None of the funds appropriated or made available
by this Act may be used to pay the salaries and expenses of
personnel to carry out section 14(h)(1) of the Watershed
Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1012(h)(1)).
Sec. 732. None of the funds appropriated or made available
by this Act, or any other Act, may be used to pay the
salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out the Rural
Strategic Investment Program authorized by subtitle I of the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2009dd
through dd-7) in excess of $2,000,000.
Sec. 733. None of the funds appropriated or made available
by this Act may be used to pay the salaries and expenses of
personnel to carry out the Rural Firefighters and Emergency
Personnel Grant Program authorized by section 6405 of Public
Law 107-171 (7 U.S.C. 2655).
Sec. 734. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries and
expenses of personnel to carry out the provisions of sections
7404(a)(1) and 7404(c)(1) of Public Law 107-171.
Sec. 735. The Agricultural Marketing Service and the Grain
Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, that have
statutory authority to purchase interest bearing investments
outside of Treasury, are not required to establish
obligations and outlays for those investments, provided those
investments are insured by FDIC or are collateralized at the
Federal Reserve with securities approved by the Federal
Reserve, operating under the guidelines of the U.S. Treasury.
Sec. 736. Of the funds made available under section 27(a)
of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), the
Secretary may use up to $10,000,000 for costs associated with
the distribution of commodities.
Sec. 737. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries and
expenses of personnel to enroll in excess of 200,000 acres in
the calendar year 2004 wetlands reserve program as authorized
by 16 U.S.C. 3837.
Sec. 738. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries and
expenses of personnel who carry out an environmental quality
incentives program authorized by chapter 4 of subtitle D of
title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa
et seq.) in excess of $975,000,000.
Sec. 739. The Administrator of the Agricultural Research
Service may make available by outlease agreements with other
Federal agencies or non-Federal public or private entities
any unused or underused portion or interest of or interest in
any agency real and related personal property, and may retain
and use the proceeds of such agreements in carrying out the
programs of the agency. Property proposed for outlease must
not be property otherwise required to be reported excess
under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of
1949, as amended. Outleases shall be made competitively, and
be based on the fair market value of the property.
Sec. 740. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries and
expenses of personnel to carry out section 9006 of Public Law
107-171, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002.
Sec. 741. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this or any other Act shall be used to pay the
salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out section 6103
of Public Law 107-171.
Sec. 742. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this or any other Act shall be used to pay the
salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out section 6401
of Public Law 107-171, the Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act of 2002.
Sec. 743. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act shall be used for the implementation of
Country of Origin Labeling for meat or meat products.
Sec. 744. Any unobligated balances in the Alternative
Agricultural Research and Commercialization Revolving Fund
are hereby rescinded.
Sec. 745. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act shall be used to carry out a
Conservation Security Program authorized in section
1241(a)(3) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3841(a)(3)).
Sec. 746. Section 726 of Division A of Public Law 108-7 is
amended by striking ``, as authorized by section 4404 of
Public Law 107-171 (2 U.S.C. 1161)'' and inserting ``through
the Congressional Hunger Center''.
Sec. 747. (a) Assistance for Commercial Tree losses.--The
Secretary of Agriculture shall use $5,000,000 of the funds of
the Commodity Credit Corporation to provide assistance under
the Tree Assistance Program, subtitle C of title X of the
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8201
et seq.), to tree-fruit growers located in a federally
declared disaster area in the State of New York who suffered
tree losses in 2003 as a result of an April 4-6, 2003,
icestorm.
(b) Offset.--The amount appropriated by this Act under the
heading ``rural community advancement program'' is hereby
reduced by $5,000,000.
Sec. 748. Section 204(a)(3) of the Agricultural Trade
Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1724(a)(3))
is amended by striking ``and Committee'' and inserting ``,
the Committee on Appropriations, and the Committee''.
Sec. 749. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act for the Food and Drug Administration
may be used under section 801 of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act to prevent an individual not in the business of
importing a prescription drug within the meaning of section
801(g) of such Act, wholesalers, or pharmacists from
importing a prescription drug which complies with sections
501, 502, and 505.
Mr. BONILLA (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the bill through page 72, line 23, be considered as read,
printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
[[Page H6634]]
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any points of order against provisions in
this portion of the bill?
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
(Mr. BONILLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, as we all know, we are proceeding with
this bill under regular order. I would like to thank the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), my ranking member, for once again helping to
produce the best bill we possibly could under the circumstances. We
were working under some incredible fiscal limitations this year versus
last year, and this is a bill that was produced by a subcommittee that
has a history of working together.
The last time we had our bill on the floor, we had over 400 votes in
support of the bill; and I am very proud of that. I think every member
of the subcommittee understands that we try to work with every last
person and try to honor every request that they have. We cannot always
do everything that everybody wants, but we certainly give it our best
shot. This is the year, as many Members know, that we also had to deal
with over 2,300 individual requests. That is a lot of requests that our
good staff has to keep track of day in and day out as we moved toward
this day; and I would like to commend the staff, both the majority and
the minority, as they have worked so diligently especially in the last
few days around the clock to try to get us to this point on the floor
so we could have a good bill to present to the folks.
So I am very proud of this product. Again, nobody always gets
everything they want in bills like this, but we certainly have done the
best we can.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. It fails to
fully protect farmers and consumers. The legislation permits big
corporate agriculture to reap massive profits while small family
farmers struggle to make a dollar. With respect to meatpacker audits,
the administration has asked for $1 million for the Grain-Inspection,
Packers and Stockyards Administration to audit the four largest steer
and heifer meatpackers, for compliance with the Packers and Stockyards
Act. This might sound like a routine request, but it is not. This will
be the first time in the 82-year history of the Packers and Stockyards
Act that the agency has audited a large packer, but the bill does not
provide this funding. Republicans must know that such an audit would
show significant problems with the meatpackers, thus their refusal to
fund it. At a time when the four largest meatpackers control 80 percent
of the market, the American public should at least know the truth.
I want to indicate my agreement with the minority committee report
that was so ably represented by the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio
(Ms. Kaptur). The report pointed out that with respect to the
Conservation Security Program that this bill eliminates all funding for
this program. This is despite the fact that this program will provide
assistance to farmers to adopt conservation methods on working farms.
This is unlike a number of other programs that take land out of
production for conservation; and assistance for conservation on working
farms has been sorely neglected in the past, and this program
represents an essential attempt that would remedy that problem.
The Wetlands Reserve Program, in a recent publication, the committee
has pointed out that the USDA referred to this program as the ``premier
wetland restoration program,'' but the bill cuts new enrollment in this
program by 20 percent in 2004. The program has a backlog of over
736,000 acres. That is why the farm conferees increased allowable
acreage, and this amendment unfortunately will thwart that effort.
The Environmental Quality Incentive program is one that has gained a
lot of discussion in this country. The bill reduces this program by $25
million in 2004. This will mean there will be a cut of 1,450 producers
who will not be able to get equipped funding in 2004. And in addition,
the backlog last year for the program was $1.5 billion, which caused
many producers to give up on the program. Another limit will discourage
those who still want to participate.
The guides to renewable energy, the minority report has correctly
pointed out that the bill zeroes out funding for this program. This
program would provide grants and loans to farmers and ranchers and
small rural businesses to buy renewable energy systems and to make
energy efficiency improvements. Now, here we are at a time when we are
seeing sharp increases in electric prices. We have seen spikes in
natural gas prices, and we are expecting more increases. These
increases could devastate small farmers, ranchers, and businesses. Any
bill that would zero out renewable energy, therefore, is not advisable.
With respect to country-of-origin labeling, the minority committee
report has appropriately pointed out that the bill prevents the
implementation of country-of-origin labels for meat and meat products.
We have to understand that it is really basically a consumer's right to
know where the goods they are consuming come from.
{time} 1245
The House unanimously supported this idea when it instructed its
conferees on the farm bill to support country of origin labeling for
both meat and perishable products. All Americans are concerned about
food safety and inspection. The bill provides about $12 million less
than requested for food safety and inspection.
The minority committee report points out that under the budget
request these funds would not have gone directly into inspection
activities, but, given the large number of recalls in 2002 and the
ongoing concern about the agency's performance, the $12 million should
have been provided for increased inspection and sampling.
There are very few areas where the American public has a greater
interest than the area of food safety and inspection. People really
want to be assured that our government is doing what it can to make
sure that the food which people are consuming has in fact been
inspected and is in fact safe. This is another deficiency in this bill.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Ballance
Mr. BALLANCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Ballance:
Under the heading ``common computing environment'', insert
after the dollar amount on page 3, line 9, the following:
``(reduced by $8,656,000)''.
Under the heading ``Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Civil Rights'', insert after the dollar amount on page 4,
line 6, the following: ``(increased by $411,000)''.
Under the heading ``Departmental Administration'', insert
after the dollar amount on page 6, line 3, the following:
``(increased by $2,005,000)''.
Under the heading ``CSREES-research and education
activities'', insert after the dollar amounts on page 11,
line 13, and page 12, line 16, the following: ``(increased by
$600,000)''.
Under the heading ``outreach for socially disadvantaged
farmers'', insert after the dollar amount on page 16, line
12, the following: ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
Mr. BALLANCE (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. BALLANCE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the floor leaders
of this bill on both sides. I appreciate this opportunity on behalf of
myself and my colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca) and
the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. Chairman, I am deeply concerned about the state of minority
affairs at USDA. We know that on April 1 of last year, Mr. Vernon
Parker, the first USDA Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, was sworn
in and given the enormous task of improving how minorities are
currently treated at USDA, preempting future civil rights problems at
USDA and righting past wrongs.
I applaud the President for his efforts in creating this Office of
Civil Rights, but I urge my colleagues, and the reason I am standing
with this amendment, is to not let this office be only window dressing
for this very serious matter.
In the 1994 report commissioned by USDA, it was pointed out that
minority participation in Farm Service Agency programs is particularly
low; and minorities receive less than their
[[Page H6635]]
fair share of USDA funding for crop payments, disaster payments and
loans. The report found gross deficiencies in USDA data collection and
handling that helped these minority farmers.
Mr. Chairman, there are currently 11 class action lawsuits pending
against USDA, all of which allege discrimination by USDA. There is a
Latino farmer lawsuit, a Native American farm lawsuit and others, and
the famous case of Pickford versus Glickman was settled in 1999. Since
then we have spent over $800 million, but there are still 2,000 cases
sitting around at USDA gathering dust waiting to be reviewed in
connection with the Pickford case.
We are hemorrhaging money. We have an Office of Civil rights. It is
underfunded. We met with Mr. Parker. He has a 90-day plan where he
wants to attack this issue, but he has two staffers in addition to
himself, and he has no money.
This amendment would allow that office to be properly funded. It
would also allow about $2 million to go into the Office of Civil Rights
so that they can review these old cases, and it would allow some
funding to go for the benefit of Latino population education.
We think that this $8 million we are seeking here is meaningful to
address all of these civil rights issues. We think it would not only
serve the Department but it would serve this Congress and would serve
this country. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I will be brief and to the point. This has been a tough
budget year. This is a tough bill, but it is a fair bill, and the
gentleman brings up some very good points that need to be addressed.
But, again, having done the best we can possibly do under the
circumstances, I hope that people understand that we wished we could
have done more but we were just not able to.
Certainly the accounts that this amendment would increase were not
treated unfairly in any way, and this is how they are funded in the
bill. For example, the Office of Civil Rights is at last year's level
plus increased pay cost. Departmental Administration is at last year's
level plus increased pay cost. Hispanic-Serving Institutions is held at
last year's level, so there is no cut there, which in this day and age
I believe people should be pleased with an outcome like that. The
Outreach Program is also at last year's level.
The gentleman's amendment would do the following: It would more than
double the Office of Civil Rights, giving that office a 104 percent
increase; increase the Departmental Administration account by 5
percent; increase Hispanic-Service Institutions programs by 15 percent;
and increase the Outreach Program by a whooping 144 percent.
Let me emphasize that if we had the money to do this we would be
doing cartwheels in supporting these kinds of increases, but we are
doing the best we can under the limitations we have in putting this
bill together.
The money that would be taken from the USDA's Common Computing
Environment Account, and while that does not sound like a grand
program, let me emphasize that this takes care of the way that a lot of
these programs are processed, like the work at the Farm Service Agency,
the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Rural Economic and
Community Development Programs. This amendment would take $8.6 million
away from USDA's ability to meet those needs, and that would indeed
create a lot of hardship out in the heartland.
Mr. Chairman, we worked very hard to present a well-considered and
fair bill to the House. I ask Members to stick with the committee and
defeat this amendment.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I think it is
important for the House to understand that what we are talking about
here is trying to assist minority farmers to be able to get experts in
the field to help them obtain the best technology and environmental
improvements in farming, to be able to be more competitive.
We know that, historically, whenever family farmers are having
difficulties, it is always the minority farmers who find it most
troubling to be able to survive.
This bill, when the work was being done, discovered a disturbing
discrepancy for funding our Nation's land grant colleges of agriculture
between funding for those land grant institutions established in 1890,
all of which are historically black colleges and universities, and
those established in 1962, which are predominantly non-minority.
I think the sponsors of this are trying to do the right thing in
making sure that the inequities that have been long-standing and
historic are addressed and that efforts are made in these difficult
times to be able to establish fairness. Because this really is a
question of fairness, whether or not we are going to be able to have an
agricultural program that is going to make sure that minorities who
have worked very hard to try to establish a place in agriculture will
have available to them the kind of expertise that is available to many
farmers generally.
So I rise in support of this amendment, and I urge Members to do
likewise.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of this amendment that I
helped develop in collaboration with Representatives Thompson and
Ballance. This amendment is important because it restores funding to
help end discrimination and prioritizes other significant funding to
help minorities in the field of agriculture.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has institutional problems that
must be resolved.
The problems within the USDA are so severe that the civil rights
complaints have cost the federal government hundreds of millions of
dollars in settlements and awards.
Fixing the civil rights complaint process and properly funding
minority initiatives are necessary to permanently end a history of
discrimination.
The USDA Inspector General, General Accounting Office, and the USDA
Civil Rights Action Team have all written numerous reports documenting
the problems at the Office of Civil Rights. Yet, employees responsible
for discrimination settlements remain employed and the system as a
whole remains unchanged.
In attempt to reform the problems at the USDA, we created the office
of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights to oversee reform at the
agency. But sadly, we have failed to fully fund this office.
Investing in the elimination of discrimination at the USDA will not
only help save the federal government money in the long run, but it
will help save employees and farmers the heartache and humiliation
associated with discrimination.
Discrimination is morally reprehensible, and an unnecessary expense
to the federal government. We must invest in the agency in order to
correct the wrongs.
This amendment is also crucial to help end discrimination because it
increases funding for Hispanic Serving Institutions by $600,000. These
institutions are great sources of innovation and deserve funding to
continue generating advances in agricultural science. We must stop the
long-standing practice of under funding these institutions.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support these modest
investments that will yield greater savings from discrimination
lawsuits and earn goodwill with the minority agriculture community.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballance).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Blumenauer
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Blumenauer:
Under the heading ``Agriculture Buildings and Facilities
and Rental Payments'', insert after the dollar amount on page
5, line 1, the following: ``(reduced by $800,000)''.
Under the heading ``Office of the Inspector General'',
insert after the dollar amount on page 7, line 18, the
following: ``(increased by $800,000)''.
Mr. BLUMENAUER (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
Oregon?
There was no objection.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment this afternoon
together with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) to provide
$800,000 for improved enforcement for the Federal animal fighting law.
It is not just enough to fight a law, Mr. Chairman. It must be
enforced.
[[Page H6636]]
In May, 160 Representatives and Senators requested this $800,000
increase for animal fighting enforcement in letters to the Committee on
Appropriation's Subcommittee on Agriculture. The broad, bipartisan
support reflects our constituents' concern for meaningful enforcement
of the Federal animal fighting law.
Fifty-five State and local sheriff's offices, State police
departments from around the country, including Kansas, my home State of
Oregon, Colorado, Texas, West Virginia, Michigan, Wisconsin and others,
have called on Congress to provide this money so that USDA will improve
its enforcement for the animal fighting law and have a stronger partner
in their efforts.
The increase we seek in our amendment would be offset by a cut of
$800,000 in the agricultural building and facilities and rental
payments account, only one-half of 1 percent, leaving over $156
million.
Mr. Chairman, in the 27 years since Congress first prohibited most
interstate and foreign commerce of animals for fighting, USDA has
pursued only a handful of cases, despite receiving a steady stream of
tips from informants and requests for State and local police on illegal
movement of fighting dogs and birds across State lines.
I was pleased to have the support of so many of our colleagues last
year in enacting provisions to the farm bill to close loopholes in the
Federal animal fighting law. Now it is time to ensure that the USDA
take seriously its responsibilities and has the resources to enforce
the law.
The amendment would provide the $800,000 for the Office of Inspector
General to focus on animal fighting cases, working closely with State
and local law enforcement personnel to complement their efforts.
While dogfighting is banned in all 50 States and cockfighting is
banned in 48 States, the Federal Government must be involved, for
participants in animal fights often come together from several States
at a time and animals are moved across State lines.
This is not some innocent pastime. Dogfighting and cockfighting are
barbaric activities in which animals are given drugs to make them
hyper-aggressive and drugs to clot their blood more quickly so they can
continue fighting. They are pushed by their handlers to fight even
after they have suffered grievous injuries, such as pierced lungs and
gouged eyes.
Dogfights and cockfights not only are deplorable animal abuse, but
they are integrally involved with illegal gambling, drug traffic and
violence to people who participate in these activities.
It is well documented that animal fighters often bring their children
to these spectacles, sending a terrible message to them about animal
cruelty and violence. Some dogfighters steal pets to use as bait for
training their dogs. Some abandon fighting animals, leaving them to
roam neighborhoods and wreak havoc. Any dog bred and trained to fight
poses a public safety risk.
Mr. Chairman, in October of 2002, the Exotic Newcastle Disease began
spreading rapidly across the Southwest United States. Exotic Newcastle
Disease is a highly contagious viral disease that affects respiratory,
digestive and nervous systems of all birds. This outbreak cost
taxpayers upwards of $100 million in containment and compensation fees,
and it is very probable the outbreak originated from cockfighting birds
imported from Mexico.
According to the State Veterinarian and Director of Animal Health and
Food Services in California, game fowl and their owners have played a
major role in the dissemination of this virus due to their high
mobility related to meetings, training, breeding and fighting
activities on a regular basis.
The Texas Poultry Federation takes a similar position in its letter,
stating that, cockfighting has spread Exotic Newcastle Disease as their
birds travel extensively and come in close contact at fights. It makes
no sense to allow illegal cockfighting operations to continue, putting
our flocks and livelihood at risk.
Mr. Chairman, surely spending $800,000 to crack down on animal
fighting is a smart investment to help prevent the spread of costly
future diseases, especially when a significant portion of the
eradication expenses the Federal Government has already incurred in the
recent outbreak, $11.5 million, according to USDA records, went to
compensate owners of birds believed to be illegal fighting cocks.
{time} 1300
Why let this illegal industry continue to thrive unchecked?
Animal fighting is no longer simply an animal welfare issue, it is an
epidemic that is costing taxpayers millions of dollars, threatening our
food supply, and destroying the hard work of American farmers. It
promotes illegal gambling and drug activities and puts the public at
risk. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this amendment.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, there is not a Member of this body that does not
believe in treating animals humanely. However, I oppose this amendment
for several reasons:
First, the $800,000 that would go to the Inspector General would go
to dogfighting and cockfighting enforcement, and it would cut buildings
and facilities funding for rent and maintenance that are already
underfunded.
The Inspector General's office has told us that enforcement of this
will be done at a minimal level since this is a misdemeanor offense.
Now, one could argue the pluses and minuses on whether it should be a
more serious offense, but these are misdemeanors that are dealt with by
local law enforcement agencies from around the country, and they cannot
afford to devote their resources at the IG level because of this
reason. The IG tells us that one case alone could cost $800,000.
Second, one of the reasons that we are debating this amendment today
is that the Humane Society of the United States points out that this
vote will be counted on the Humane Scorecard this year. The only reason
that this item is even on their scorecard is that we have addressed all
other of their concerns in this bill. We provided a $437,000 increase
for animal welfare, $1.1 million more for regulatory enforcement in the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and fully funded the
enforcement of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act in the Food Safety
and Inspection Service.
If the sponsors of this amendment were serious about this, programs
that the HSUS supported like the ones that I just mentioned are the
ones that would be cut to pay for this amendment, but then that would
force them to prioritize like the rest of us have to do.
If every Member of the House brought an amendment to the floor just
because they did not get every last nickel that they wanted, we would
be here all day and we could never get this bill done.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to not vote against this
amendment simply because I am suggesting that they do, but vote against
this amendment because of the following statement by an HSUS Vice
President who said, ``The life of an ant and that of any child should
be granted equal consideration.''
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Blumenauer-
Tancredo amendment. The amendment is designed to improve enforcement of
the Animal Welfare Act.
I think that when we recognize that so many Americans are concerned
about animal abuse, we look at this as being one of the most egregious
areas where dogfighting and cockfighting takes place. As the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) pointed out, it is not only a matter of
animal abuse, it is a matter of illegal gambling, drug trafficking, and
violence against other people. Violence breeds violence. I think that
this amendment, in seeking to bring an appropriate Federal role through
funding through the Inspector General, would help the local communities
understand that a Federal focus means that more attention needs to be
paid to local enforcement as well.
As somebody who served in municipal government over the years, this
is something that came up in terms of activities that were taking place
in some of the neighborhoods in my own community, and certainly people
who heard about them and who were involved in the community understood
that the level of violence and the level of animal cruelty was
something that needed public attention.
[[Page H6637]]
We should have no tolerance for animal cruelty. We should have no
tolerance for a system which degrades these creatures of God. And we
also need to understand that, as the honorable chairman pointed out,
the observation that was made by an official concerning the quality of
ants and children, I do not think that he actually meant to equate the
importance of an ant to a child, but what the statement meant to say
was that all life here ought to be regarded with some degree of respect
and that, in effect, when we try to come forward here and support
animal welfare and support the rights of animals to not be treated
cruelly, what we are doing here is, in effect, elevating our own
humanity.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to just respond very briefly
to two points of the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee.
What he describes with the notion of this being a misdemeanor is part
of the catch-22 that some of the people in this Congress who are
fronting for the illegal fighting animal activities have produced for
us. When we had an amendment on the floor that was approved in the farm
bill last year, it was to increase the penalties so that it would be
easier to pursue. But, sadly, in conference, contrary to the will of
the House, these provisions were watered down. So now we can plead,
well, it is only a misdemeanor so we should not be involved with it.
The fact is, as I mentioned in my statement, 55 local jurisdictions
and State jurisdictions in law enforcement have asked us to come
forward, because while these provisions may be misdemeanors, they are
tied up in a network of illegal activity that breeds violence, drug,
and other activities and is serious. It is not just animal cruelty, if
somebody wants to dismiss that.
Second, the gentleman's argument that we cannot afford it I think is
a false economy. First of all, I am taking from an account that they
have already significantly reduced. It is an area that would already
have $156 million. We are only speaking of one-half of 1 percent, but
the $800,000 here has the opportunity to prevent vast losses to the
Federal Government.
As I pointed out, Exotic Newcastle Disease and all the evidence
suggests it is illegal game-fighting that has spread it throughout the
Southwest. That is the conclusion from the gentleman's home State of
Texas, from California, and has cost us upwards of $100 million that we
have had to spend tracking these down, eradicating poultry and other
birds and compensating people, including $11.5 million for what are
probably illegal fighting cocks.
I would suggest that the gentleman, with all due respect, is not
being responsive to the overall economic impact, and it is not simply
that we just dismiss as something not worthy of more law enforcement
attention. It does not get the attention because the interests that are
sympathetic to animal fighting, illegal animal fighting, have
deliberately fought to have strong enforcement provisions. The least we
can do, the least we can do is provide the resources within the extent
of the existing law to cut it back, stop the illegal activity, and
prevent the waste of tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I wanted to say
that I think the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) has a very
worthy amendment here. I was particularly struck by one of his
arguments: the linkage between crime and the mistreatment of animals
and the increasing spread of Exotic Newcastle Disease across our
country which, by the way, also has a cost. It comes to us in the form
of trying to remediate and to make whole those whose flocks have been
devastated. I do not think that it is widely known that, as the
gentleman mentioned, some of the animals might have come in from
another country. We know how poorly our borders are inspected.
So I want to commend the gentleman for taking the offset for his
amendment from the buildings accounts, as opposed to from our research
accounts or our animal plant health inspection accounts, or our border
inspections, et cetera. I think that the matter is that the people who
are doing this are doing it illegally; and now there is a linkage to
the spread of disease, serious disease.
I think that the gentleman's amendment is very reasonable. He is
asking for $800,000 for the Office of the Inspector General who, when
they are given the authority, do a great job, to try to remedy this
animal fighting across our country and, I think importantly, to stem
any disease that may spread as a result of it.
So I just wanted the speak on behalf of the gentleman's amendment and
to thank him for the responsible manner in which he has found an offset
to try to find the funds for the Inspector General.
I might say, one of the bad things about the way the laws concerning
the Inspector General have been written, even if wrongdoers are found
and fines are levied, under the laws of our country the Inspector
General has to return those funds to the Department of Treasury. It
does not go to the Department of Agriculture for further prosecution
and further investigation. I have never liked that aspect of the law,
because I think we ought to reward the Inspectors General that are
doing a good job in apprehending wrongdoers across this country.
So I want to thank the gentleman for his very appropriate amendment
here, and I urge my colleagues for their support.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, attached is a letter signed by 122
members requesting this $800,000 increase, as well as a letter of
support from the Humane Society of the United States.
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, May 23, 2003.
Hon. Henry Bonilla,
Chairman, Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rayburn
House Office Bldg., Washington, DC.
Hon. Marcy Kaptur,
Ranking Member, Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture,
Longworth House Office Bldg., Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bonilla and Ranking Member Kaptur: We are
writing to thank you for your outstanding support in FY 2003
for improved enforcement by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture of key animal welfare laws, and to urge you to
``hold the line'' in FY 2004 so that this effort can be
sustained. Your leadership is making a great difference in
helping to protect the welfare of millions of animals across
the country, including those at commercial breeding
facilities, laboratories, zoos, circuses, airlines, and
slaughterhouses. As you know, better enforcement will also
benefit people by helping to prevent: (1) injuries to
slaughterhouse workers from animals struggling in pain; (2)
orchestrated dogfights and cockfights that often involve
illegal gambling, drug traffic, and human violence; (3) the
sale of unhealthy pets by commercial breeders commonly
referred to as ``puppy mills''; (4) laboratory conditions
that may impair the scientific integrity of animal based
research; (5) risks of disease transmission from, and
dangerous encounters with, wild animals in or during public
exhibition; and (6) injuries and death of pets on commercial
airline flights due to mishandling and exposure to adverse
environmental conditions.
For FY 2004, we want to ensure that the important work made
possible by the FY 2003 budget is continued, that newly hired
and trained inspectors will be able to stay on the job, and
that resources will be used in the most effective ways
possible to carry out these key laws. Specific areas of
concern are as follows:
office of inspector general/$800,000 increase for animal fighting
enforcement
In last year's Farm Bill, Congress enacted provisions that
were overwhelmingly supported in both chambers to close
loopholes in the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) regarding
cockfighting and dogfighting. Since 1976, when Congress first
prohibited most interstate and foreign commerce in animals
for fighting, USDA has pursued no cockfighting cases and only
three dogfighting cases, despite rampant activity across the
country. USDA has apparently received innumerable tips from
informants and requests to assist with state and local
prosecutors, but routinely ignored or declined such requests.
It is time for USDA to take seriously its responsibility to
enforce the portion of the AWA dealing with animal fighting
ventures. Dogfighting and cockfighting are barbaric
activities in which animals are drugged to heighten their
aggression and forced to keep fighting even after they've
suffered grievous injuries, such as pierced lungs and gouged
eyes. Animal fighting is almost always associated with
illegal gambling, and also often involves illegal drug
traffic and violence toward people. Dogs bred and trained to
fight endanger public safety. Cockfighting has
[[Page H6638]]
been linked with the recent outbreak of Exotic Newcastle
Disease that has already destroyed many poultry flocks and
cost taxpayers more than $40 million for containment and
compensation, with costs estimated to rise as high as $250-
$500 million.
Given the dangerous nature of animal fighting enforcement
work, we believe that the department's chief law enforcement
arm--the Office of Inspector General (OIG)--is best suited to
lead this effort. We therefore respectfully request an
increase of $800,000 for the OIG to focus on animal fighting
cases and inclusion of bill language directing the Secretary
to coordinate intelligence gathering, investigation, and
prosecution of animal fighting cases, pursuant to Section 26
of the AWA, through the OIG, working with local and state law
enforcement personnel to complement their efforts, and
drawing on other federal entities including the Attorney
General, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services, and
the Office of the General Counsel as needed.
Food Safety and Inspection Service/Humane Methods of Slaughter Act
(HMSA) Enforcement
We greatly appreciate the inclusion of $5 million in the FY
2003 bill to hire at least 50 inspectors whose sole
responsibility will be to ensure that livestock are treated
humanely and rendered unconscious before they are hung upside
down, skinned, dismembered, scalded, or killed. Having these
new inspectors focus on unloading, handling, stunning, and
killing of animals will bring much-needed attention to
slaughter plant practices that have had little oversight in
recent years. We also appreciate your inclusion of language
specifying that the ongoing activities of 17 District
Veterinary Medical Specialists hired as a result of $1
million provided in the FY 2001 Supplemental should be
limited to HMSA enforcement rather than the various unrelated
duties with which they had been charged. And we commend you
for directing the General Accounting Office to review and
report by July 1, 2003 on the scope and frequently of HMSA
violations, with ``recommendations on the extent to which
additional resources for inspection personnel, training, and
other agency functions are needed to properly regulate
slaughter facilities in the areas of HMSA enforcement.''
There are nearly 900 federally inspected slaughter plants
in the U.S., handling millions of animals each day. In
addition to requesting continued funds in FY 2004 to sustain
at least 50 new inspectors and the 17 positions mentioned
above, we hope you will give full consideration to any
recommendations the GAO may have for enhancing enforcement of
this important--and very basic--law.
APHIS/Animal Welfare Enforcement
Thanks to funding increases in the past four years,
Congress has enabled USDA to begin to reverse a serious
decline in the number of AWA compliance inspections. However,
the President's FY 2004 budget proposal--which suggests $1.7
million less for the Animal Care division than in FY 2003--
would fail to cover the salaries of recently-hired inspectors
and substantially undo the gains Congress has made possible.
Moreover, there is still much room for improvement. Many
facilities continue to escape oversight for long periods of
time, giving rise to situations that threaten both human and
animal health and safety. Nearly half of the sites that do
get inspected are found to have apparent violations of the
minimum standards under the Act and, therefore, follow-up
visits are badly needed. We urge you to sustain Animal
Welfare funding at the FY 2003 appropriated level of $16.4
million, in order to keep the current number of inspectors
(approximately 100 to oversee about 10,000 sites).
Again, we are very grateful for the Subcommittee's
leadership in addressing enforcement needs for key animal
welfare laws. We hope you will stay the course, so that funds
necessary to administer these laws effectively will continue
to be available and will be appropriately used. We look
forward to working with you in the coming year, and thank you
for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Christopher Smith, Earl Blumenauer, Thomas Tancredo,
Robert Andrews, Mark Green, Elton Gallegly, Roscoe
Bartlett, Gary Ackerman, David Wu, William Delahunt,
James Moran, Louise Slaughter, Steven LaTourette, Frank
LoBiondo, Dennis Kucinich, David Price, James McGovern,
Steve Israel, Tammy Baldwin, Bob Filner, Barney Frank,
Tim Ryan, Rush Holt, Rick Larsen, Jerry Costello, Jim
Leach, Steven Rothman, Nancy Johnson, James Langevin,
Michael Ferguson, Gary Ackerman, George Miller, Carolyn
Maloney, Mark Udall, Vic Snyder, Jim Saxton, Rob
Simmons, Anthony Weiner, Donald Payne, Johnny Isakson,
Richard Neal, Frank Wolf,
Neil Abercrombie, Dennis Moore, Bill Pascrell, Jr., Ellen
Tauscher, Judy Biggert, Luis Gutierrez, Michael Doyle,
Karen McCarthy, Jerrold Nadler, Janice Schakowsky,
Robert Wexler, Phil English, Mike Thompson, Peter
DeFazio, Dale Kildee, Sherrod Brown, Frank Pallone,
Elijah Cummings, Zoe Lofgren, Robert Menendez, Jay
Inslee, Joseph Hoeffel III, Michael Bilirakis, Bernard
Sanders, Chris Shays, Henry Waxman, Brad Sherman,
Charles Rangel, Fred Upton, Tom Lantos, Hilda Solis,
John Tierney, Peter Deutsch, Edward Whitfield, Lloyd
Doggett, Edolphus Towns, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Barbara
Lee, Major Owens, Adam Smith, Eliot Engel, Michael
Honda, Lane Evans, Julia Carson, Corrine Brown, William
Clay, Jr., Brian Baird, Adam Schiff, Grace Napolitano,
Robert Matsui, Albert Wynn, Anthony Weiner, Martin
Meehan, Nicholas Lampson, Thomas Allen, Nancy Pelosi,
Patrick Kennedy, Sherwood Boehlert, Anna Eshoo, Sander
Levin, Shelby Berkley, James Clyburn, Howard Berman,
Jim McDermott, Nydia Velazquez, Gene Green, John Lewis,
Lynn Woolsey, Sanford Bishop, Jr., Charles Gonzalez,
Michael Capuano, Benjamin Cardin, Ed Case, Harold Ford,
Jr., Pete Stark, Stephen Lynch, William Lipinski,
Charles Bass, Clay Shaw, Jr., Jim Greenwood.
____
The Humane Society
of the United States,
Washington, DC, July 14, 2003.
Dear Representative: On behalf of The Humane Society of the
United States (HSUS) and our more than 7.7 million supporters
nationwide, we are writing to urge your support for the
Blumenauer-Tancredo amendment to the Fiscal Year 2004
Agriculture Appropriation Act. The HSUS intends to score this
vote on our annual Humane Scorecard,which is a joint project
of several major national animal protection organizations.
Last year, Congress closed loopholes in the federal animal
fighting law (Section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act). Now
Congress needs to ensure that USDA enforces this law in a
meaningful way. The Blumenauer-Tancredo amendment would
provide $800,000 for the Office of Inspector General to focus
on animal fighting cases, providing for collaborative
opportunities for federal, state, and local law enforcement
personnel on dogfighting and cockfighting activities that
involve interstate transport or foreign commerce.
Dogfighting and cockfighting are barbaric activities in
which animals are drugged to heighten their aggression,
strapped with knives or gaffs on their legs, placed in a pit,
and forced to fight to injury or death for amusement. During
the instigated fights, the animals suffer grievous wounds.
Animal fighting is often associated with illegal gambling,
and also often involves illegal drug traffic and violence
against people. Dogs bred and trained to fight endanger
public safety.
Cockfighting has been linked with the recent outbreak of
Exotic Newcastle Disease (END) that destroyed many poultry
flocks and cost taxpayers more than $100 million for
containment and compensation. Not only have law enforcement
agencies and humane and veterinary groups called on Congress
and USDA to deal with this growing problem, so have
traditional agricultural organizations like the California
Farm Bureau Federation and the Texas Poultry Federation, out
of concern about cockfighters spreading END and other
diseases.
Thank you for your consideration, and please vote ``yes''
on the Blumenauer-Tancredo amendment to the FY 04 Agriculture
Appropriations Act.
Sincerely,
Wayne Pacelle,
Senior Vice President, Communications & Government Affairs.
Mimi Brody,
Director, Federal Legislation.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, last year, Congress enacted provisions to
close loopholes in the federal animal fighting laws. We need to ensure
the Department of Agriculture (USDA) has the resources it needs to
enforce the law.
The Blumenauer-Tancredo amendment will provide a modest $800,000 for
the USDA's Office of Inspector General to focus on animal fighting
cases.
Dogfighting is banned in all 50 States and cockfighting is banned in
48 States. Dogfights and cockfights frequently involve not only
deplorable animal abuse, but also illegal gambling, drug traffic, and
violence to people. Additionally, cockfighting may be responsible for
the spreading of diseases such as Exotic Newcastle Disease (END), a
highly contagious virus that affects the respiratory, digestive, and
nervous systems of birds. This disease has destroyed many poultry
flocks throughout California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas and has
cost taxpayers more than $100 million for containment and compensation.
As Co-Chair of the Congressional Friends of Animals Caucus, I urge my
colleagues to vote in favor of the Blumenauer-Tancredo amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. 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 Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer)
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Davis of Alabama
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
[[Page H6639]]
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Davis of Alabama:
Page 3, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $3,500,000)''.
Page 11, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
Page 13, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
Page 13, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,500,000)''.
Page 14, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,500,000)''.
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama (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
Alabama?
There was no objection.
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support and to
offer an amendment that will correct a discrepancy and a disparity that
has been overlooked in this bill, Mr. Chairman.
Let me begin by, first of all, thanking the very able ranking member
of this subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for her
cooperation and her assistance. Let me thank my good friend, the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), as well and a number of my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have worked on this issue
during the last several months.
Mr. Chairman, 17 Members of this institution are honored to represent
1890 Land Grant Colleges. 1890 Land Grant Colleges are historically
black colleges and universities that have played an enormously
significant role in the life of the South, in particular in the last
100 years. These institutions, that include in my State Tuskegee
Alabama University and Alabama A&M University, not only reach an
underserved part of the population, but they have been vehicles for
launching leadership all over this country.
In the President's budget that was submitted, there was a discrepancy
in the way these schools are treated and the way that 1862 Land Grant
Colleges are treated. While I certainly take the chairman's admonition
that if all of us who wanted to add a dollar here and a dollar there
were to come to the floor, we would be here all day, I think that all
of us would recognize that we have some fundamental obligations to
treat like institutions in the same manner.
This particular budget essentially leaves level funding for 1862 Land
Grants, which happen to be predominantly white institutions. Funding is
slashed by five times that amount for 1890 Land Grants. I am not here
to point a finger, Mr. Chairman, or to cast aspersions. I simply
identify this discrepancy as something that we should fix.
A number of people ask, what is the impact of a cut that seems
relatively small, about 3 percent? That has to be measured I think in
the individual life of these institutions. Seventeen of them stand to
lose $200,000 to $300,000 a school. In Tuskegee, Alabama, a $200,000
cut at Tuskegee University weakens the ability of that school to do
enormously important work. A $200,000 cut at Alabama A&M University
weakens the ability of that school to do enormously important work.
While so many programs have had to bear the brunt of the budget ax,
we ought to make sure that it is administered in a fair and evenhanded
manner.
So I ask my colleagues to support this amendment and to restore $3.5
million, a fraction of a $3 trillion plus budget, to bring back these
1890s to parallel treatment with 1862s in this budget. This is an act
of bipartisanship on our part.
I want to thank someone who is not here today, who is touring a base
in his State, my good friend and one of the ablest colleagues that we
have in this institution, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
He has worked on this issue since the budget process. I want to also
thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), our colleague on the
Committee on Appropriations.
So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, to make a very
important statement about the worth and the value of these colleges
that play such a significant role.
{time} 1315
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr.
Chairman, once again the gentleman brings up some very good points in
his amendment, but we have done the best we possibly could under the
limitations we have this year; and the offset the gentleman is looking
at, again, would hurt the implementation of a lot of programs that we
have discussed earlier. So for that reason I would oppose this
amendment.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to rise in very strong support of the
gentleman from Alabama's (Mr. Davis) amendment. I think it is a very
important one to support our land grant institutions, and those that
are historically black colleges and Tuskegee Institute. If you think
about it, if you look at the budget the President presented to the
Congress, the funding for the 1890 land grant institutions was actually
cut three times as deeply as funding for the 1862 land grant
institutions under the President's submittal. And so the cuts fall more
harshly on those institutions that have an enormous load to carry in
helping to bring up the talent to perform the research at those
colleges which often gets shortchanged because people are spending so
much of their time teaching.
I think only an administration that really does not understand what
these institutions do could cut the funding three times as deeply as
the other trims that were made in the budget. It has been very
interesting to watch the President tour Africa. In having worked with
our colleagues over the years to try to get linkages between our
historically black colleges and Tuskegee Institute with African
institutions to try to draw linkages halfway across the world, I know
how difficult it has been. It has been hard to get those kinds of
agreements to occur, to give these institutions a chance to embrace the
21st century and create the kind of global connections and specialized
knowledge that rests in these institutions.
So I think the gentleman makes a very reasonable proposal here for
$1.5 million to be directed to the institutions for facilities and $2
million for capacity building for the 1890s institutions, offsetting
that $3.5 million from the common computing environment.
When I look at what happened over the weekend with all the news
coming out about credit cards over at the Department of Agriculture and
some of the internal problems that they are having, I know one thing:
when you invest in the Historically Black Colleges and Universities and
the Tuskegee Institute, you are investing in people; you are investing
in the future where knowledge is so important to propel economic growth
including in some of the most hollowed out parts of the country where
agriculture has to be the lodestar industry. These institutions provide
hope and opportunity for people who were traditionally excluded from
other institutions of learning in this country.
So I think that the gentleman has correctly awakened this Congress
and the administration to what is not just fair but appropriate and
will help to provide opportunity in many quarters. So I want to
strongly support the Davis amendment.
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the gentleman
from Alabama's amendment.
As a graduate of one of our nation's historically Black land-grant
institutions, North Carolina A&T State University, I know how important
these colleges and universities are to farmers in economically-
distressed areas. To reduce the research and education activities by 17
percent and the expansion for extension activities by 10 percent
imposes an onerous burden on these institutions and their ability to
serve minority students and farmers. These cuts stand in marked
contrast to the minimal reductions experienced by 1862 land-grant
institutions.
Consequently, I would urge support for the gentleman's amendment
which would restore $3.5 million for these colleges and universities.
At a time when limited resource farmers are struggling for survival, we
should not be undercutting their best educational resource, the
extension arm of the 1890 colleges and universities.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, which
will restore funding to historically black 1890 land grant colleges,
[[Page H6640]]
and thank Artur Davis for bringing this disparity to our attention.
When the Budget Committee, of which I am Vice-Chairman, debated this
year's Budget Resolution, Mr. Davis alerted us to a troubling
discrepancy. Under the budget, historically black 1890 Colleges of
Agriculture would have federal funds cut by 3.1 percent, while
predominantly non-minority 1862 land grant colleges were only cut by .6
percent. The Budget Committee agreed to insert language into the Budget
Resolution stating 1862 and 1890 colleges should be treated equitably.
Under the budget, Capacity Building grants for research and education
activities at 1890 colleges were cut 17 percent, while Facilities
Expansion funding for Extension Activities were cut by 10 percent. Our
amendment restores this funding.
There are 1,890 extension offices working directly with minority
farmers. Their activities are vital to the success of these primarily
agricultural institutions, and provide critical support for farmers in
the most economically-distressed areas.
Because so little funding already flows to these activities, cuts of
this magnitude could cripple the ability of 1890 institutions to pursue
their mission.
Again, I thank Mr. Davis for offering this amendment and urge its
passage.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Rehberg
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Rehberg:
Strike section 743 (page 71, lines 8 through 11), relating
to country of origin labeling for meat and meat products.
Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment, that is why I had it
read. It is country-of-origin labeling.
A vote for this amendment is a vote in favor of country-of-origin
labeling. A vote against this amendment is a vote to kill it. The
proponents of what they did in the subcommittee and full committee will
talk about the fact that they are delaying for 1 year, but that does
not occur. Within this amendment, by delaying the implementation, you
in fact delay country-of-origin labeling because the Department will
spend no time on this very matter. We knew all along the administration
did not support this. I have talked to the President personally about
this. I do not know if they necessarily understand the issue.
The issue is very simple. Do we want to give our producers in America
the opportunity to tout the fact that their product was born, raised,
and processed in America? Country-of-origin labeling offers shoppers a
choice, but also provides farmers and ranchers fairness. The issue has
been fully debated. It was debated in the House farm bill. It was
debated in the Senate farm bill. It passed both bodies. It was signed
by the President; and, in fact, the administration has had twelve
hearings around the country.
By taking the funding away from the implementation, you are cutting
the legs out from under American farmers and ranchers and our ability
to know where our product comes from, and it makes you wonder why
somebody would be reluctant to put their name or their country on their
product. Currently you can buy clothes, you can buy electronics, you
can buy toys that label where they come from; but you cannot label meat
mandatorily. You do not know where your meat is necessarily coming
from. And yet you can buy Australian lamb chops, New Zealand apples,
and Chilean sea bass.
Some will try to say that COOL violates the international trade
agreements. And that is not true. In fact, in an article just today,
the Japanese officials have said that trade would be banned beginning
September 1 if the United States cannot certify that exports contained
no Canadian beef. Our number one importer of our beef is Japan. They
want country-of-origin labeling. Our number three importer of our meat
is Korea, and they want the same labeling. In fact, 60 countries around
the world are asking for labeling.
I have brought along an article that was in the Great Falls paper
yesterday, the Great Falls Tribune. Interesting: ``This spring after a
case of mad cow disease was confirmed in Alberta, Montana's cattle
industry found out just how valuable it is to know where cattle are all
the time. In June, officials learned five bulls from a Canadian herd
linked to the Alberta cow with the disease were sold to a Montana ranch
in 1997. The paper trails created by the State's inspection process
traced in less than 20 hours where the bulls had been and where they
ended up. Montana's brand inspection laws are among the country's
strictest. Every time branded livestock are moved across a county line,
sold to another owner or brought to a livestock auction, an official
inspection must take place; records of those inspections are kept in a
State wide registry. Jack Wiseman, administrator of brand enforcement
of the Montana Department of Livestock said, `If a cow never left the
State of Montana or was exported to State with a similar brand laws, we
could trace the ownership of a cow from calf-hood to death.' ''
Do not listen to me as to why this is important. Listen to somebody
who has some experience in enforcement of livestock laws. `` `Montana's
system is enviable,' says Larry Gray, the director of Law Enforcement
for Texas and the Southwest Cattle Raisers. The Lone Star State does
not require brand inspections for stock sales between private
individuals. Brands are recorded at the county level but there is no
state-wide registry. I wish our laws were more stringent. That is a
problem in Texas, he said, and right there there is not a way for State
officials to trace an individual animal's history. `Perhaps with
country-of-origin labeling which would show consumers where meat sold
at the retail level is born, raised, and processed, there will be a way
to trace cattle here.' ''
Does that not scare you to death? Cattle can be stolen in some States
around this country and we have do not have the process set up to be
able to tell, like Montana did within 20 hours, where cattle that had
come from a State or a country that had a problem, where those
livestock went. It is important that we pass this amendment. It is
important that we carry forward with country-of-origin labeling for
America, for farmers and ranchers, for consumers.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, there is strong bipartisan opposition to this amendment
in this body. It is interesting to note on this occasion when
amendments are presented before this body how much misinformation is
presented. For the proponents of this amendment to in any way indicate
that you cannot put labels on any meat products at this time is absurd.
This is a free country.
Any producer, any retailer right now can stick a label that says
``Made in America'' on any aisle in any frozen food section, in any
section of the grocery store if they choose to do that.
The misinformation about whether or not this amendment affects mad
cow disease is one of those fear-mongering arguments that is often
times made in this town and around the country when you are trying to
reach people at the emotional level and not at all talking about the
truth in substance about the issue at hand.
This country-of-origin labeling on meat products that is in the bill,
the prohibition on funding, has absolutely nothing to do with mad cow
disease. But again, this argument is being pulled off the shelf to try
to scare people into voting for this.
This prohibition that we have put in this bill simply says that USDA
will not be able to work on enforcing, promulgating, developing any
kind of regulation for a year until there can be more ample study and
understanding of the bill.
This country-of-origin labeling provision that was put in the farm
bill last year is controversial and costly. Many of our producers out
there are shaking in their boots right now wondering about the
liability that they would be faced with, the action that could be taken
against them by people who would simply hold them accountable for not
putting the proper label on their product. It could drive them out of
business.
Grocery stores in this country, I do not care what part of the
country you live in, if you have got a Safeway, if you have got a, like
in Texas, an HEB Food Store or an Albertson's, all of the people who
run those grocery stores are opposed to this amendment because they
have a tremendous liability laying before them if that product is not
labeled appropriately.
So if you are interested, any Member who votes for this amendment
that is
[[Page H6641]]
being presented by my colleague today would in essence would be voting
to increase the grocery bill and create sticker shock the next time
Americans go through the meat section in a grocery store. So that is
what you would have to face if you vote for this amendment.
The cost of this implementation of country-of-origin labeling has
been estimated on the low end so far by those who have been working on
this at USDA to be $2 billion. Overall most people agree that that is a
very conservative cost estimate; and, in fact, the cost of implementing
this would be much, much higher and guess who is going to pay for that,
Mr. Chairman? That is why we are completely opposed to this amendment.
This has bipartisan support to be opposed to this amendment. The
chairman of the authorizing committee, the ranking member, so many
others that are part of the Hispanic Caucus, the Black Caucus, all
across the board, again, members of the authorizing committee are also
opposed to this. And they are working on this issue, having hearings,
trying to deal with this country-of-origin labeling in the appropriate
way. We are just asking with the provision in our bill to give them the
time to do that.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, our previous speaker talked about bipartisan effort to
not pass this amendment. Let me state that last year there was a
bipartisan effort to get this amendment in the bill, and it passed both
the House and the Senate. It is also interesting when the gentleman
says, well, you can just slap that sticker on a piece of meat or
whatever. Well, guess what, we require that we know where our clothing
is made, where our shoes are made. I think consumers need to know the
meat, the produce they put in their mouths, where it comes from, where
it is raised, and if it is safe.
I agree with the statements made by my colleague from Montana and
thank him for the leadership on this issue. Over the past several days
I received letters of support from the Oregon Farm Bureau and the
Oregon Cattlemen's Association thanking me for helping to bring this
amendment forward today.
Our amendment is supported by farmers in my district and across the
country, which is why it is endorsed by the American Farm Bureau and
the Farmers Union. Consumers Federation supports this as well as other
consumer groups. Our farmers grow the best produce and raise the best
livestock in the world, and American consumers know this. Studies have
shown that Americans want to buy American commodities and are even
willing to pay a premium to do so.
{time} 1330
Yet while a consumer could go into a department store and know that
their shirt is made in this country, they cannot go into the grocery
store and have the same certainty about the food they are going to
serve their families.
U.S. producers need mandatory labeling in order to compete in the
marketplace. Product differentiation is the only way consumers can
exercise their choice between purchasing either domestic beef or beef
produced by foreign competitors.
In fact, according to a 2003 Colorado State University survey, 69
percent of consumers participating were willing to pay for more steaks
clearly labeled ``USA Guaranteed: Born and Raised in the United
States'' than for those without origin labels. Our Nation's farmers and
ranchers produce the best and safest commodities in the world, and our
Nation's consumers deserve the chance to determine where their food is
born, raised and processed.
Recent events have also shown that the country of origin labeling is
necessary for U.S. farmers to compete in international markets, and we
keep talking about trade in international markets. Our number one beef
importers, Japan and Korea, have both demanded assurances that beef
they are buying is actually American beef.
For these reasons, we had country of origin labeling provisions added
to the farm bill last Congress. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is
formulating the rules to implement these provisions right now.
What the provision in the Agriculture appropriation bill would do
would be to prevent the USDA from putting these rules together, short-
circuiting a process that is currently in place, a process that Members
of this body and the Senate voted to have in there last time.
Opponents of this amendment contend that the costs for industry,
including retailers, to comply with country of origin labeling are too
great, and the price of products will rise as a result. This is simply
untrue. We already have a test case in place.
The fourth most populous State in this country, Florida, has had a
country of origin labeling requirement for over 20 years. The Florida
Department of Agriculture has estimated the annual cost of its
mandatory produce labeling law is just a couple of pennies for a bag of
groceries.
Country of origin labeling is good for American farmers, good for
American consumers. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to stand up today for their constituents and vote for the
Rehberg-Hooley amendment.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I rise in support of this amendment. I think the American consumers
have a right to know where the food they are consuming comes from and
where it is made. I mean, think about this. Any of us here could look
at the labels on our own clothes and know where the country of origin
is. Why should we not be able to have that right when it comes to the
food we consume?
This is not only a matter of right to know. It is a matter of
assuring that American agriculture will be able to have the full impact
and benefit from the American market because American consumers prefer
American agriculture. We have got to make sure that American
agriculture has the support that it needs.
Indeed, we are talking here about an agriculture bill. This idea of
right-to-know and protection of the market are only some of the reasons
why so many consumer groups and so many farmer groups across this
country promote this country of origin labeling amendment.
I want to cite the following in the time that I have remaining as
groups that are supportive of this legislation so there can be no
mistake about it, notwithstanding the remarks that have been made here
that there is plenty of support for country of origin labeling across
the country: The Alabama Farmers Federation, the American Agriculture
Movement, Incorporated, the American Agriculture Movement of Arkansas,
the American Agriculture Movement of Oklahoma, the American Corn
Growers Association, the American Corn Growers Association of Nebraska,
the American Meat Goat Association, the Arkansas Farmers Union, the
Baker County Livestock Association, the Beartooth Stock Association,
the Bitter Root Stockgrowers Association, the Bull Mountain Land
Alliance, the Burleigh County Farm Bureau, the Calaveras County
Cattlemen's Association, the California Farmers Union, the California
National Farmers Organization, the Campaign to Reclaim Rural America,
the Carbon County Stockgrowers Association all support country of
origin labeling.
The C.A.S.A. del Llano, the Catfish Farmers of America, the Center
for Rural Affairs, the Cochise-Graham Cattle Growers Association, the
Consumer Federation of America all support country of origin labeling.
Crazy Mountain Stockgrowers Association, Dakota Resource Council,
Dakota Rural Action, Dawson Resource Council, Dunlap Livestock Auction,
Eagle County Cattlemen's Association, Eastern Montana Angus
Association, Fall River and Big Valley Cattlemen's Association,
Fillmore County Cattlemen's Association, Florida Farm Bureau
Federation, Florida Farmers, Incorporated, Florida Fruit and Vegetables
Association, Florida Tomato Exchange, Georgia Peanut Commission,
Georgia Poultry Justice, Glacial Ridge Cattlemen's Association all
support country of origin labeling.
The Grant County Cattlemen's Association, Grant County Stockgrowers
Association, Holy Cross Cattlemen's Association, Houston Company
Cattlemen's Association, the Idaho Farmers Union, the Illinois Farmers
Union all support country of origin labeling.
The Independent Cattlemen's Association of Texas, the Indiana Farmers
[[Page H6642]]
Union, the Indiana National Farmers Organization, the Institute for
Agriculture and Trade Policy, the Iowa Farmers Union all support
country of origin labeling.
Just Food, Kansas Cattlemen's Association, Kansas Farmers Union,
Kansas Hereford Association, Kemper County Farm Bureau, Kern County
Cattlemen's Association, Kit Carson County Cattlemen's Association,
Land Stewardship Project, the Lincoln County Stockmans Association all
support country of origin labeling.
The Livestock Marketing Association, the Madera County Cattlemen's
Association, the Malheur County Cattlemen's Association, the McCone
Agricultural Protection Organization, the Merced-Mariposa Cattlemen's
Association, the Michigan Farmers Union, the Minnesota Farmers Union,
the Missouri Farmers Union all support country of origin labeling.
The Missouri National Farmers Organization, the Missouri Rural Crisis
Center, the Missouri Stockgrowers Association, the Modoc County
Cattlemen's Association, the Montana Agri-Women, the Montana
Cattlemen's Association, the Montana Farmers Union all support country
of origin labeling.
The Montana National Farmers Organization, the Montana Stockgrowers'
Association, the National Association of Farmer Elected Committees, the
National Catholic Rural Life Conference, the National Consumers League
all support country of origin labeling, and there is dozens and dozens
more.
Support this amendment.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 50 minutes and
that the time be equally divided.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) like to
control the time?
Mr. BONILLA. The Chairman is correct.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) will control 25
minutes in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I request to control the time for the
proponent.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg) will control
25 minutes.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the distinguished chairman of the authorizing
Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Chairman of the
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies for
yielding me this time and for his leadership in making sure that we
address the country of origin labeling issue correctly.
Many of my colleagues may not appreciate how hard the House Committee
on Agriculture has worked on the country of origin labeling issue.
Several years ago, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), then
Subcommittee on Livestock and Horticulture chairman, and some of his
colleagues began a process to explore this subject. They started out
with the hope that it could be accomplished in a way to provide an
effective tool for producers to earn more in the marketplace. The
subcommittee proceeded to meet with interested parties and the
administration to develop the idea.
Subsequently, the fiscal year 1999 Agriculture appropriations
directed the Secretary to conduct a comprehensive study on the
potential effects of the idea. During an April 28, 1999, Subcommittee
on Livestock and Horticulture hearing, the Clinton administration
testified about the ``variety of regulatory regimes'' for labeling that
could be adopted and further asserted that they ``believe there would
probably have to be some kind of paperwork traceback system.'' The GAO
pointed out that ``there is going to be significant costs associated
with compliance and enforcement.''
Concerned that the costs outweighed the benefits for producers, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and others turned their attention
to working with USDA to develop a credible voluntary program that
allowed producers and processors to work together. Meanwhile, the GAO
released its report in January of 2000 stating that mandatory labeling
``would necessitate change in the meat industry's current practices,
create compliance costs across all sectors of the industry'' and
asserting that ``U.S. packers, processors and grocers would, to the
extent possible, pass their compliance costs back to suppliers, U.S.
cattle and sheep ranchers, in the form of lower prices or forward to
consumers in the form of higher retail prices.''
On September 8, 2000, interested parties submitted a petition to the
USDA for a voluntary program and the Subcommittee on Livestock and
Horticulture conducted another hearing on September 26, 2000, to review
studies and the USDA's progress on the petition.
In early July, 2001, Under Secretary Hawks wrote industry to commit
the Agriculture Marketing Service ``to begin action on the petition
requesting a USDA voluntary, user-fee funded certification program that
will enable a label for beef products.''
That same month, on July 26 and 27, the House Committee on
Agriculture conducted its markup of the Farm Bill. The transcript of
that markup has 12,463 lines of text, with 3,167 lines on amendments to
create a mandatory country of origin labeling program. Fully 25 percent
of the markup was devoted to this proposal, which was ultimately
rejected because of concerns that the costs outweighed the benefits.
It has been mentioned by some that this has been passed on the floor
of the House, and that is most certainly not correct. Mr. Chairman, an
amendment was passed on the floor dealing with fruits and vegetables.
The more complicated issue of beef and pork, which is the only subject
covered by the provision in the Agriculture appropriations bill that
delays implementation for a year, is the beef and pork provisions. The
House has never taken a position on this, and this is far more
complicated and costly for the producers than any of the other sectors,
whether one likes the other ideas or not.
For those that attended the Farm Bill conference meetings, they know
that labeling was a major topic of discussion there as well.
Despite a complete lack of any hearing record on the subject, the
Senate insisted on its provision requiring labeling for beef, pork,
lamb, fruits, vegetables, peanuts and fish.
Just weeks ago, on June 26, the Committee on Agriculture conducted an
extensive hearing on the implementation of mandatory country of origin
labeling. We learned a number of troubling things. We learned that most
of the problems associated with implementation were a result of the law
and not the administration's interpretation. We learned that while some
groups still support mandatory country of origin labeling, the two
largest livestock producer groups in America, the National Cattlemen's
Beef Association and the National Pork Producers Council, both oppose
it.
We learned that this new law will open everyone up and down the food
production system to third party lawsuits with the potential of
creating havoc for producers, packers, processors and retailers. We
learned that because of the way the law is drafted, no matter what the
administration does in writing the implementing regulations, because
the retailers have been made ultimately liable for this labeling
system, that they will set up their own regime to protect themselves
against mislabeled products, and that regime is going to be very costly
to producers.
{time} 1345
If you are a domestic producer of beef or pork, you are going to have
to comply with an enormous amount of record keeping, a great deal of
cost which you are going to have to bear yourself. Lower prices for
your product are going to be passed down to you by the processors, by
the distributors, by the wholesalers, by the retailers; and that
foreign competition, whether it is fine Argentinian Black Angus beef or
Australian beef, they are simply going to slap it on the label and say
we are guilty. It will cost them little, if anything, to comply; it
will cost the U.S. producers more. Therefore, this is going to be a
major competitive disadvantage for American agriculture. I would urge
Members to support the
[[Page H6643]]
original Bonilla language in the appropriations bill to delay
implementation for 1 year and oppose the amendment which has just been
offered to strike that language. We need time to sort out the problems
with this legislation before Congress ends up doing a lot more harm
than good.
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Rehberg-
Hooley amendment to say that the Committee bill provision indeed
subverts the law. This Rehberg-Hooley provision was included in the
farm bill. But when the opponents of that law found an opening in the
subcommittee of agriculture appropriations to try to subvert the law,
they took that opportunity. And so what we are talking about here is
changing the law of our country that was passed here, as well as passed
in the other body, and signed into law. We surely had plenty of
consideration. That is number one.
My second point is this amendment is being offered at a time when we
have the highest number of meat recalls in the country's history. God
forbid you are the parent of someone who just died from eating
contaminated meat. I find it very interesting that those who oppose
this say there are going to be all these high costs and all these
problems. Do Members know that not one producer in Ohio has complained
to me about this law? I represent cattlemen and cattlewomen. They raise
a lot of different kinds of animals in our region. Producers want the
labeling. In fact, the Ohio producers, the Great Lakes producers, are
working on their own electronic ear tags because they do not want their
meat mixed with other stuff that they do not know where it comes from.
They want to be able to offer a quality product at a competitive price
and get it on the shelves of the supermarket. The problem is that the
supermarkets deny shelf space to independent producers.
We know who wants this law subverted. It is not the ranchers; it is
not the farmers. It is the people who want to make money off them. Any
decent business person wants labeling of their product. Our father
operated a family grocery and when he made his meatloafs, when he made
his sausages, we had our own label tape that we pealed and put right on
the package. We were so proud of his products. Our market was called
Supreme Market, and to this day it sold the best meat I ever ate, the
best sausage I ever ate. We were proud to label it. Good producers want
labels on their quality products.
In Ohio, the Great Lakes Family Farms has a special verification
program. They eartag animals with all relevant information. They know
what shots the animal got. They know which feed lot it was on and how
much it weighed at 6 months, at 8 months. They know everything because
they know their customers want to know, and that local label gives them
a niche in the market to be able to offer quality meat.
Mr. Chairman, in an era when the consumer wants to know, why is the
Republican leadership trying to subvert the law and not give us as
consumers the right to know where our meat comes from? It is simply
because if you are going to mix in Argentinian beef or mix in some
other kind of meat at the store, you do not want your customers to
know. If you have some Uruguayan skinny steer that was wandering
somewhere around Latin America, and then you are going to take some of
that meat and blend it in with Ohio beef, you do not want anybody to
know because you are going to make just as much money on that package.
But the farmers know how to label. They are doing it already. They
are doing it in our region, and those electronic ear tags are so
complete and with technology being what it is today, we can know
everything about an animal, even who its mother and father were.
Do not give me this baloney it is going to be so much more expensive.
Our farmers are already doing it. Ohio farmers can lead the way. In
fact, the American Farm Bureau supports the law. It does not support
subverting the law. They support country-of-origin labeling. In the
letter that they have sent to us, they say those products should be
labeled at the retail level. With increased trade, more products are
being imported into the United States and the farm bureau is working
with the agricultural marketing services to implement a program with
the least amount of burden and cost to producers.
So in addition to all of the names that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kucinich) read into the Record, I will include a letter from the
American Farm Bureau.
Mr. Chairman, Members might have noticed the recent stories about mad
cow disease, BSE, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, that is up in
Canada now. We have to know where our meat comes from, and people who
raise meat should be responsible for it, just like my father was
responsible for his products. They ought to be proud of what they are
producing and not ashamed, and not try to hide something on a package
that when you take the hamburger out, it looks red on the outside and
it is all brown on the inside. We all know what they are doing. We
understand what that is all about.
I think it is a worthy amendment. We have the technology to do it. I
will place in the Record what the 4-H requires of our students as one
of its projects to have labeling of beef. This is not rocket science.
It can be done.
American Farm Bureau Federation,
Washington, DC, June 24, 2003.
Hon. Marcy Kaptur,
House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Kaptur: The American Farm Bureau
Federation commends the Appropriations Committee for timely
action on the FY04 agriculture spending bill. We ask that you
consider the following information as the Appropriations
Committee acts on the bill this week.
We support full funding for the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 (FSRIA). Unfavorable weather
conditions, uncertainties involved with international trade,
the value of the dollar and record high input costs have
converged to produce a turbulent and difficult time for
agriculture. The industry has suffered through several
consecutive years of historic low market prices and weather
disasters. The new farm law helps address problems faced by
American farmers and ranchers and it provides unprecedented
funds for our nation's conservation needs. Changes in farm
bill programs would be devastating not only to farmers and
ranchers but the rural economy as well. Consequently, the
Farm Bureau strongly encourages you to avoid making changes
to FSRIA in the FY04 appropriations process.
We commend the Committee for maintaining full funding of
farm bill commodity programs. It is imperative that counter-
cyclical payment rates, loan rates and direct payments be
preserved as adopted in FSRIA. We are opposed to any changes
in current payment limitations for direct payments, counter-
cyclical payments, loan deficiency payments (LDP) and
marketing loan gains (MLG), including a separate payment
limitation for the peanut program. Current rules on spouses,
three-entities, generic certificates and actively engaged
requirements should be retained.
AFBF supports country-of-origin labeling (COOL) as passed
in the 2002 farm bill. Many farmers and ranchers believe that
the products they grow in the United States should be labeled
a product of the United States at the retail sales level.
With increased trade, more products are being imported into
the United States, giving the consumers greater choices at
the marketplace. Farm Bureau is working with the Agricultural
Marketing Service (AMS) at USDA to implement the program with
the least amount of burden and costs to producers. We are
disappointed the legislation blocks further work by USDA to
implement country-of-origin labeling for meat and poultry
products. We ask that you support the restoration of funding
for this important program.
Farm bill conservation programs should be fully funded.
Full implementation of the Environmental Quality Incentive
Program (EQIP) and Conservation Security Program (CSP) is key
to assisting agricultural producers in complying with
environmental regulations and addressing important
conservation issues nationwide. Program funding for technical
assistance is essential if conservation programs are to be
successful. While we are pleased that the bill increases
funding for conservation operations activities, we are
disappointed that funding for CSP is blocked and limits have
been placed on EQIP.
The development of alternative energy sources is not only
significant to the advancement of American agriculture but
also is vital to enhancing our nation's energy security. The
2002 farm bill contained an energy title that includes
provisions for federal procurement of bio-based products,
bio-refinery development grants, a biodiesel fuel education
program, renewable energy development program, renewable
energy systems, a bioenergy program and biomass research and
development. These programs will assist rural economic
development as well as increase our nation's energy
independence. We are disappointed that the bill under
consideration does not include funding for key programs that
promote alternative energy sources.
[[Page H6644]]
Thank you for your consideration of these issues of
importance to farmers and ranchers.
Sincerely,
Bob Stallman,
President.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm) as a demonstration of strong bipartisan support in
opposition to this amendment.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, many of us have spent countless hours on
country-of-origin labeling on the authorizing committee both during the
discussion on the farm bill and since. The Committee on Agriculture has
conducted a series of briefings on country-of-origin labeling to
educate staff on the implementation of the requirements, and recently
held a full committee hearing on the issue. The gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Hayes), chairman of the subcommittee, has indicated that
he will hold additional hearings on this issue in the near future.
It is not my purpose to stand in opposition to the amendment to
subvert the law. I am standing here saying we want this to work; and
for it to work, it will take an additional 1 year of time to make it
work.
I question the wisdom of a mandate to include on labels every piece
of information that a random consumer survey identifies as something
consumers want to know. Current U.S. food labeling requirements are
based on the attributes of the food itself, such as nutritional
composition, ingredients, special safety considerations such as
presence of allergens and requirements of handling and safe use.
This was pointed out by the previous administration in a letter to
the EU concerning biotechnology. Every additional piece of information
we require on a label by government mandate diminishes slightly the
information that is already there.
I have heard that Americans know where their shirts are made,
Americans know where their cars are made, but not what they are putting
in their mouth. I say what is wrong with this picture? Those who say
that are right, we do not know where these things are made, but these
items do not have to participate under guidelines even remotely similar
to those included in the current COOL law. Members will notice their
shirt may say ``Made in the USA,'' but it does not say where the cotton
came from or where the dye that went into the shirt came from.
Be careful what we ask for when we stand on this floor and say we
want to mandate something, just in case we get what we are asking for.
Every single beef producer group that testified in front of the
Committee on Agriculture testified very clearly that this is a
marketing issue and not a food safety issue. Too many of us in this
body right now tend to mix the two together in saying that meat that
does not come from the United States is not safe. Please do not send
that message to the consumer because the consumer today in America has
the most abundant food supply, the best quality of food, the safest at
the lowest cost to our people of any other country in the world; and
when we begin to suggest that unless there is a certain label there
will be a problem with the safety of the food, it is dangerous for
producers. That is why most producers do not support the full intent of
this law, and that is to mandate something that no one has yet figured
out how to do.
We exempt most meat from even the applications of the law.
Restaurants are exempted, for example. So let us be careful as we vote
on this amendment today. And again I point out, this is not a food-
safety issue. This is a marketing issue. If we are going to deal with
the food safety, and I fully concur and fully intend to be back on this
floor very, very soon with a food safety component, trace back. Our
producers today are beginning to look at how can we truly certify where
our meat comes from from a BSE standpoint. In Canada, they have a
trace-back system. We do not have a trace-back system yet, but we will
have one soon because producers all over the country recognize that we
must have a way of tracing. We do not have it yet, but we will have one
that will be supported by a majority of our producers.
This is one of those things that gets very emotional because there
are those that tend to mix this up with food safety. I want to repeat
for the third time, this is not a food-safety question. I absolutely
support identifying where all food products come from to the best of
our ability. I happen to believe, for example, that American lamb
identified as such and Australian lamb identified as such is something
that the consumer ought to know. We are working to get that kind of
agreement and do it in a way that makes sense.
But if we implement this in the way that those who support this
amendment are suggesting today, we are going to create some tremendous
uncertainty. This has all kinds of trade implications. It has all kinds
of food-safety implications. With all due respect to those offering
this amendment, it is interesting that most of the producers supporting
this do not deal with Canadian or Mexican cattle. If we want to ban all
Canadian cattle, all Mexican cattle into the United States, then be
prepared to have all United States cattle banned from country after
country after country, because under trade agreements, reciprocation is
something that we truly agree to. I urge Members to oppose this
amendment and support the delay, not circumvention of the law, but a
delay to get this right.
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to observe one thing. The history of this
country has demonstrated that every time there is an effort to provide
additional regulation or additional oversight in order to help workers
or help farmers, or to help little guys against the big guys, somehow
it is always too costly. We cannot provide the minimum wage, we cannot
provide wage and hour protection, or this or that because it is going
to cost too much.
Well, I would bet if we conducted a poll of consumers, that they
would, by overwhelming numbers, say that they want this provision to go
forward. We have a tremendous debate in this country going on about the
virtues of globalization. As far as I am concerned, globalization is
inevitable; it is going to happen, and we need to figure out how to
adjust to it. But I also note that in that debate you have numerous
forces in this country who under the rubric of globalization would lead
you to believe that there is still no legitimate amount of room for
discussing the virtues and values of home-grown products, whether it is
automobiles or farm products.
I suggest to Members that even if we take the assertion of the
gentleman from Texas at face value, and I do, let us say that this is
not a consumer health issue, let us say this is not a food-safety
issue, let us say it is simply a marketing issue.
{time} 1400
This is a marketing tool that our producers have a right to have.
This is a marketing tool that I assume is the reason that the Farm
Bureau and the Farmers Union both have indicated their support for this
provision. Our consumers want to know where the stuff that they eat
comes from and our farmers want to know that they can demonstrate pride
that it is their home grown product. This amendment is the only way
that we are going to let them exercise that right.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), vice chairman of the Subcommittee on
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and
Related Agencies.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the subcommittee chairman for the
yielding me this time, and I rise in reluctant opposition to this
amendment.
First of all, I want to say, no one through the whole process on this
issue has ever contended that this is a food safety issue. As the
ranking member of the authorizing committee said three or four times,
it is very true, this is not an issue of food safety in any way, shape
or form. The reason I oppose this amendment today is in support of our
independent producers.
I would just like to give a little scenario about what is going to
happen if this is enacted. All we are asking for here is a time-out to
study the issue more closely before a mandatory system is enacted. But
what we are going
[[Page H6645]]
to see is a system where independent producers are going to bear the
cost of implementation of this law, and anyone who thinks that the
packers really care about the cost on this are totally mistaken. The
fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, any kind of cost that they would
incur is going to result in reduced bids to the independent producers
out there who do not control the price that they get for their
products.
The situation in my State is that we have Canadian pigs coming into
Iowa to be grown out primarily by independent producers. If this is
enacted, we are going to see the large conglomerates start from
raising, farrowing their own hogs, growing those hogs out, killing
those hogs, putting them in their own labeling package, marketing
themselves. Those are going to all say ``USA.'' The independent
producers' animals are going to have to say that they were bred in
Canada or wherever they came from and are going to be discriminated
against.
The issue here is, do we preserve our independent producers? We talk
about vertical integration in the livestock industry. Nothing is going
to bring it on faster than provisions like this that will hold the
independent producer accountable but not the major, multinational
companies.
So I just stand here in support of the independent producers and look
at the mandate that is going to be put on them and what it is going to
cost them.
The one question I have asked producers, in what way, shape or form
is this ever going to put one more cent in your pocket, in your bottom
line? No one has been able to answer that question. So I think we have
to step back, take a look at this, and understand all of the
ramifications of this issue.
Also, Mr. Chairman, I have to look at the cost to the consumer out
there when we talk about the additional costs that are going to be
borne by the retailers. Who is going to pay the bill? The consumers who
walk in and buy that at the counter are going to absorb the cost. So,
in support of independent producers and consumers, I reluctantly say
that we should oppose this amendment and support our independent
producers.
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Wu).
Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Montana for yielding
me this time. I rise in strong support of my colleague from Montana and
my colleague from Oregon's amendment on meat origin labeling.
The opponents of this amendment argue complexity and delay. I want to
offer simplicity and probably brevity here. We created the strongest
securities and financial industry in the world by asking for
disclosure, labeling and disclosure a few decades ago. That was opposed
tremendously by the industry at that time. However, I believe that many
segments of the industry would support that today because that
disclosure has been helpful to the securities and financial industry.
As previously pointed out, I would like to make a point that
labeling, I believe, is a good thing. I can look at the back of this
tie and determine that it is made in America. I can look at the
labeling in this suit and determine that it is made in America. If I go
to the cloakroom right now and eat a hot dog, I cannot tell where that
product came from. It comes down to this. I think it really is very,
very simple. People ought to know and people ought to be able to
choose. As your mothers and your grandmothers admonish you, you are
what you eat. I ask this Congress to support this amendment so that
people can eat American and be American.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dooley), a Member who is considered an expert in this
field.
Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
amendment. I think we need to reflect on why the National Beef
Cattlemen's Association and why the National Pork Association, who
represents the majority of producers of those livestock commodities
which are subject to this mandatory labeling, why they oppose this.
They oppose this legislation because they realize that it is going to
result in additional cost to their producer, be they small or be they
large.
They also understand that this also is not a health issue, and they
make a distinction on what is the appropriate role of government in
terms of placing mandates on producers and that we should have mandates
when we have an issue that is related to the health of consumers, but
we should not have a government mandate when it relates to a marketing
issue. That is what this measure is all about.
We have had a number of my colleagues that have got up on the floor
and said, we have labeling of our items of clothing that we wear. But
we do not have labeling on our clothing that we wear that tells where
the wool came from, where the cotton came from or any of the products
that are part of this. We only know where this product, where this
clothing, was actually manufactured. We are going far beyond that in
this approach.
There is nothing in law today that precludes producers from having
the opportunity to voluntarily label where their beef or pork or meat
product came from. That is the appropriate tack I think that we should
be taking today. We should once again I think back up and at least have
another time-out, which is what the chairman's proposal does, to give
the industry more time to understand how we can move forward in a more
responsible manner.
This amendment that is on the floor today is one which will,
unfortunately, cost producers the most. And what also I think is very
apparent, it is going to create an unintended consequence of exposing
producers to liability, exposing them to private rights of action by
groups that might be motivated by welfare issues, by a whole host of
issues that will now have an opportunity to seek legal and civil
recourse against a lot of small and large livestock producers. That is
not what we should be doing with this legislation.
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I think the gentleman from Montana for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today as the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham)
said he was reluctantly opposing, I am reluctantly supporting this
amendment. I have kind of been back and forth on this. But I think it
is the best way for us to resolve this issue if we can keep the
mandatory provision in place.
The main reason I am supporting this is that we should not be dealing
with this issue in the Committee on Appropriations. This issue should
be dealt with in the authorizing committee. I was ranking member on the
Subcommittee on Livestock and Horticulture for many years and worked on
this issue on the voluntary and all the other things. I was on the farm
bill conference. The big problem here is that the language that was put
into the farm bill is bad language, and it needs to be fixed. It has
got problems. The authorizing committee ought to do that.
I totally agree this is not a food safety issue. It gets mixed up. It
is a marketing issue. But I think people need to understand that we are
arguing something that we do not even know what it is going to be. The
rule has not been developed. There are people out doing studies saying
it is going to cost this much. We do not know what it is going to be
because there has been nothing that has been put forward at this point.
I would just like to point out, people have brought up this issue of
marketing versus food safety. In the food safety area, we have had this
BSE issue in Canada and everybody has read about that, but I do not
know if people understand how it is that we guarantee in this country
that we are BSE-free. You talk about the complications of this system.
What we are doing in the BSE area, the food safety area, we are asking
producers to sign a self-certification that they have not fed animal
parts to cattle in this country and that they have not used certain
kinds of antibiotics. It is self-certified, very simple and does not
cost anybody hardly anything. I am arguing that the same thing could be
done with the marketing aspect of this COOL. In other words, if this is
good enough to guarantee that we do not have BSE in our livestock, then
why is it not good enough to certify that this is where the livestock
came from?
My point is that this could be implemented in a way that is not very
expensive to producers. These issues that
[[Page H6646]]
are there are caused by the way the law was written, and it was
inserted into the farm bill, and, frankly, I do not think we took
enough time at that point to go through that and fully understand the
implications.
So I think that the Committee on Agriculture ought to be dealing with
this. I think that there are problems with the law. There are potential
problems with implementation. I do not think there has to be. But it
ought to be dealt with in the Committee on Agriculture and not on the
floor of the House and not in the Committee on Appropriations in my
judgment. I think the administration ought to have been out there with
some rulemaking at this point so that we had some better idea what they
are intending to do.
I am going to support this amendment. I think if we keep this in the
law it is going to make the committee move faster. We will then be able
to resolve this. Because I think, in the end, people want to have the
food labeled. It is just a question of how we get there. I think there
are simple ways that this could be done that are not going to cost
people a lot of money. I encourage the adoption of the amendment.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) who has a great expertise on this
subject.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I commend the chairman of this
subcommittee for his leadership on this issue and trying to get a
little common sense back into what has become a very difficult issue.
Mr. Chairman, this provision was added into the farm bill without a
single hearing. Nobody actually in the business came and talked about
how you do this and exactly what you do. It sounds good, that we all
ought to have a label that says where our meat comes from. The problem
is when you start working through how you implement it, it gets very
complicated.
Let me just mention a couple of ways it gets complicated.
Number one, the underlying law exempts about 75 percent of the meat
that is consumed in this country. If you eat it in a restaurant, it
does not count. It is not labeled. If it is hamburger or other sort of
processed meats, it does not count. It is not labeled. If it is
chicken, if it is turkey, you do not get a label.
We have heard over and over that the consumers have a right to know.
If the consumers have a right to know where their meat comes from, they
have a right to know where 100 percent of their meat comes from rather
than 25 percent of their meat; and so the effect of this is that we are
adding a regulatory burden on 25 percent of the meat. That leaves 75
percent of the meat which is at a competitive advantage because of a
government regulation. That is not right. It is time to step back and
figure out how to do this thing right.
Number two, we hear over and over again how this is really going to
be good for producers, that this is a market tool and they ought to be
just loving having this opportunity. I would say that if producers see
an opportunity to make money, they are going to take advantage of it.
There are efforts in the beef industry today, the certified Angus
program and other things have been very successful, but that is
different than a government mandate that tells you what you must do.
It is not the big grocery stores that are going to pay this burden,
it is not the big packers that are going to pay this burden and, in
some ways, it is not even the largest cattle feeding operations. The
people that are going to feel this burden are the cow-calf producers
who have got to figure out some way to understand this regulation and
then go comply with it before anybody will buy their calves, and then
the stocker guys who take the calves and try to fatten them up before
they go to the feed lot, those people on the low end of the production
scale. So when we talk about big guys versus little guys, we ought to
understand that this is a mandate that is going to be paid for by the
little guys in the operation.
We have heard it over and over again that this is not a safety issue,
this is a marketing tool, and we are going to make you do it whether
you like it or not. That does not make sense. What makes a lot more
sense is to take a time-out as the underlying bill does, give the
Committee on Agriculture a chance to go and talk to producers as well
as grocery stores and packers and consumers, people up and down the
chain, and see how you can make something that works and actually makes
sense.
{time} 1415
This underlying law is not it, and I would say that anyone who wants
to justify the underlying law has a very steep hill to climb.
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, who controls the time as far as closing?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin). The gentleman from
Texas has the right to close.
Mr. REHBERG. Why would that be if it is my amendment?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is the manager of
the underlying bill. He reserves the right to close.
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of talk about experts on this floor. I
am a member of the National Cattlemen's Association not because I am a
Member of the Congress but was because I am a cattle producer. Less
than 3 years I was on the ranch, running 147 cows, seven bulls, 2,000
cashmere goats. In Montana we know where our product comes from, and we
know where it goes. It may not be a safety issue until one needs it.
Let me read this article again: ``In June, officials learned five
bulls from a Canadian herd linked to the Alberta cow with the disease
were sold to a Montana ranch in 1997.'' 1997. ``The paper trails
created by the State's inspection process traced in less than 20 hours
where the bulls had been and where they ended up.'' That is not bad. We
know where they came from. We know where they went. And if we had not
had that opportunity, it would have shut our borders down too. It would
have been devastating to our industry.
I am amazed that there would be any opposition from any party in this
country to know where their cattle come from, where their meat comes
from so that we have the ability to tell people where it has gone in
case these kinds of situations occur. So one can say it is not a safety
issue until such time as one needs to know where they came from and
where they went.
This provision within the farm bill does not even take place, it does
not become implemented until September of 2004. That is plenty of time.
And to the gentleman from Texas when he talks about the fact that it is
a delay of 1 year, no. If they had wanted it to say only a delay for 1
year, the amendment in the subcommittee would have said that, and it
does not. If they want to put that in, we can talk about that; but we
are not at that point because what this does do is if they do not vote
for my amendment, they in fact will stop, they will kill because nobody
within the administration will spend any money on it because it says
they cannot implement it. So there is no ability to spend money on it.
Trade implications, yes, there are trade implications to this. But not
to the extent that they are talking about.
Again, I repeat, Japanese officials said that trade would be banned
beginning September 1 if the United States cannot certify that exports
contain no Canadian beef. How can we do that if we do not keep track of
our country-of-origin labeling? Volunteerism, that is great; but that
is smoke and mirrors. It is never going to happen because our
retailers, our packing plants will not play with us little guys. I know
because I felt the victim sitting back on my ranch with 147 calves
wondering what my price was going to be. I was a price taker, not a
price maker. Little guys like me do not make price. The big guys do,
and an entire industry was created in Texas for the very purpose of
taking advantage of importing cattle from foreign countries to mix with
ours, to take advantage of our good products, entire industries.
So there is no doubt there is another State standing here on the
opposite side. There is no doubt that they would be parochial as I
would be parochial, but do the Members know what? I live along the
border, and we do in fact have the Northwest Compact. We do business
back and forth. But all we are trying to do is create an opportunity to
[[Page H6647]]
be proud of American beef, to give us the opportunity to take advantage
of an opportunity to showcase what we do for the American consumer. We
have had opposition against this all along the way, and it has not
ended. And when our chairman of the subcommittee talks about
appropriateness, the appropriate place to have killed this bill with
this proposal would have been in the farm bill or introduced
legislation, but not to take the funding out from underneath or the
implementation because what they are in fact saying is we did not want
it before, but we want to win it behind closed doors.
And I have come to the conclusion, and I have been in this business a
few years both as a State legislator and as a lieutenant governor,
people support reform as long as it does not change anything. And that
is what we are seeing here right now. Nobody wants to change anything
because they are kind of comfortable with their position in the
marketplace. I do not market. True, I do the best that I can on my
little 147-cow operation, but I will tell the Members who does the
marketing. It is the big guys.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman
Bonilla) for yielding me this time.
I rise today in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Montana (Mr. Rehberg) and the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms.
Hooley). I applaud the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) for
including a provision in the agriculture appropriations bill that would
limit USDA funding for the implementing of the mandatory country-of-
origin labeling for meat and meat products. The country-of-origin
labeling law as written clearly requires more congressional attention
before going into effect by September 30, 2004. I have friends on both
sides of this issue, and I always support my friends. I support my
friends with this amendment by cautioning them against the hasty
implementation of unintended consequences that no one has yet fully
researched, and I support my friends on the gentleman from Texas's
(Chairman Bonilla) side by saying this is something that we do not need
to do now. Recognizing there are many concerns among producers,
processors, suppliers and retailers, the House Committee on Agriculture
held a hearing on June 26 for witnesses to discuss how mandatory
country-of-origin labeling will affect them and their respect to
industry. The hearing raised many questions, and the livestock
witnesses specifically pointed out that there is tremendous potential
for unintended consequence.
As chairman of the Subcommittee on Livestock and Horticulture of the
Committee on Agriculture, I intend to hold further hearings on this
matter. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has held 12 listening
sessions across the country from April to June of this year to allow
those who will be affected by the law to voice their opinions. This was
in addition to the numerous other producer and trade association
meetings they have attended to discuss this law.
Country-of-origin labeling is not a new concept. The Subcommittee on
Livestock and Horticulture held hearings on the issue during previous
Congresses, and it was debated at some length during the House
committee's consideration of the 2002 farm bill. The committee voted
not to include the provision because there were too many unknowns about
how this would affect producers. When the farm bill went to the floor,
an amendment was added to label fruits and vegetables only.
As the Senate created their version of a farm bill, a provision was
expanded to include beef, pork, lamb, fruits, vegetables, wild and
farm-raised fish, and peanuts. I think it is important to note that the
Senate held no hearings and had no debate on how producers and the
industry would be affected by country-of-origin labeling.
I have heard concerns from many of my constituents about this issue,
predominantly my livestock producers. I can tell the Members that not
one of them has said this law will bring additional revenue or market
advantages. They all express their deep concern that this law instead
will bring them undue burdens and headaches in order to be in
compliance. Unfortunately, a ``fire, ready, aim'' approach led to the
creation of the country-of-origin labeling law. This issue clearly
needs further attention, and delaying the implementation for meat and
meat products is a step in the right direction. I would like to
reiterate that this provision only affects meat and meat products. The
current law will continue to go into effect for fruits, vegetables,
wild and farm-raised fish, and peanuts. I urge my colleagues to support
the appropriations bill and reject the Rehberg-Hooley amendment.
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I have no requests for time, and I
continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I consume.
I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee for this good
consideration today and my colleagues for speaking on behalf of my
amendment.
I have not been around the Congress all that long. This is my second
term. I was confronted with a brand-new farm bill. That is one way to
get your feet wet, drinking out of the fire hydrant, stepping into the
middle of that. When I hear the debate about the fact that there has
not been enough conversation, enough debate, we do not know where this
is taking us, I remind my colleagues that this does not get implemented
until September of 2004. We have got well over a year to continue the
hearings, to continue the work on it. Congress can continue to have
hearings. We can help the process along the way and develop the right
country-of-origin labeling.
During the farm bill discussion that I was confronted with as a
freshman, the country-of-origin labeling debate consumed 25 percent of
the markup dialogue, 25 percent. So why are certain people reluctant to
want to have beef or other meats labeled? Because they want to have the
ability to blend cheaper products from other places for the purposes of
marketing themselves. But are we seeing the cheaper price at the
consumer level? Not always.
It is interesting to watch the marketing of our meat products
throughout this country. If the beef guys jump up and complain,
somebody steps forward and pushes pork in front of them or they might
push chicken in front of them. We at the local level, us small guys, do
not control the marketing. We need this avenue. We are proud of our
product. And at a time when we are in a recession, at a time when much
of American agriculture is flat on its back, we need the opportunity to
say America matters to us in agriculture, America matters to the
consumer; and if we can marry the two, our agricultural producers
throughout this country, the mom-and-pops in Iowa and Montana and Texas
and California and Georgia and Connecticut will all know that they have
done a good thing because we have said American products matter.
We are not banning anything from a foreign country. We are not trying
to create a competitive disadvantage. All we are trying to do is say
give us the opportunity, us small guys to have the opportunity to have
mandatory country-of-origin labeling so we know where our product is
coming from, so we can take great pride in the product that we produce.
The country-of-origin labeling gives American shoppers a choice. It
gives American farmers and ranchers fairness. It gives us the
opportunity to say buy America. Please support this amendment. Support
the country-of-origin labeling.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Once again I want to reiterate that often times in this town,
unfortunately, truth and substance are set aside and emotional pleas
are made in order to advance a certain cause. The opposition to this
amendment is supported strongly. The opposition is strongly supported
by thousands, millions of red-blooded Americans out there who are
either producers or they are part of the processing of meat. They are
running grocery stores in neighborhoods all over the country. They do
not want this provision implemented until it can be studied further
[[Page H6648]]
and analyzed and done the right way. And again ultimately if this is
implemented, the bills at the grocery store, there will be sticker
shock in many of the grocery aisles out there as Americans wonder what
happened; how did Congress implement such a libelous costly regulation
so quickly without even taking the time to do so.
And let us also understand that any producer out there can now put
labels on whatever they would like. There is an implication here
somehow that there is some prohibition now on putting a label on any
meat product. They can do that now today anytime they want. Also the
implication somehow that this is going to threaten our food supply, I
am delighted that many of the authorizers have stepped forward today in
a bipartisan way to state clearly this is about marketing, this is not
about any kind of food-safety issue.
This is, again, a 1-year prohibition on implementation or
promulgation or developing of any regulations. So, again, the
misinformation that has been presented that this is somehow an effort
to kill this permanently is misguided. This appropriations bill simply
runs for 1 year.
Finally, I would like to state very clearly that the Bush
administration, the administration has put out a statement saying that
the administration supports the committee's position on country-of-
origin labeling for meat or meat products. So there is strong
bipartisan support for our position on this issue. Everyone, again,
from the chairman of the authorizing committee; the ranking member; the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus;
the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) of the Congressional
Black Caucus, again across the board the widespread support that we
have on our side in taking a position I think is very clear.
And, again, if we would look at the substance in truth about what we
are debating here, we would hope to defeat this amendment resoundingly.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Rehberg-Hooley
amendment, which strikes the provision in this bill that prohibits USDA
from implementing mandatory country of origin labeling for meat and
meat-products.
Country-of-origin labeling is about giving people the information
they need to make an informed choice to protect the safety of their
families. Thirty-five countries we trade with including Canada, Mexico
and members of the European Union already have a country-of-origin
labeling in place. And American families recognize the need for this
labeling--7 out of 10 people say they are willing to pay more to know
where their food is coming from. At a time when food imports are
increasing, but the number of inspections of imported meat is actually
decreasing, consumers deserve that right.
And given the record 57 million pounds of recalled meat last year,
this effort is also about being able to trace back contaminated product
in the event of a recall. Knowing the source of an outbreak is a
critical part of that process so that we can quickly take action to
prevent people from getting sick. This is critically important
considering the 76 million sicknesses and 5,000 deaths that occur every
year from foodborne illness.
Some have argued that halting implementation of country of origin
labeling for meat is to allow more time to consider the impact of the
program on the food industry. But Congress already gave the USDA more
than 2 years to design a program that is fair to all parties, including
industry and consumers. Under that timetable, labeling is not scheduled
to become mandatory until fall of 2004.
Mr. Chairman, country of origin labeling will not violate trade
agreements or lead to retaliation. It will not bankrupt the food
industry. It will simply let consumers know where their food comes
from. We owe the American people that. Support the Rehberg-Hooley
amendment.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of Rehberg-Hooley
amendment which would preserve country-of-origin labeling (COOL)
requirements.
As many of my colleagues know, in 2002, provisions were added to the
Farm Bill requiring grocery stores and similar businesses to provide
country-of-origin information for all fresh and frozen fruits and
vegetables, red meats, seafood and peanuts.
However, during the subcommittee markup of the Agriculture
Appropriations bill, language was added barring implementation of these
provisions.
Mr. Chairman, we were elected by the people of this country because
they believe in our ability to represent their views. We passed the
original legislation requiring country-of-origin labeling because our
constituents want the information they deserve to make informed food
purchase decisions for their families. We passed this legislation
because our constituents want additional steps taken to prevent the
potential spread of diseases such as mad cow, which we know was
recently discovered in Canada. We passed this legislation because our
constituents want special protective measures put in place to prevent
tampering with respect to our food supply.
The provision currently in the bill would keep the American people in
the dark by refusing to fund efforts to implement country-of-origin
labeling for meat and meat products. We cannot let that happen. I
encourage support of the Rehberg-Hooley Amendment.
{time} 1430
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin). The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. REHBERG. 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 Montana (Mr.
Rehberg) will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Hefley
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Hefley:
Add at the end (before the short title) the following new
section:
Sec. ____. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated
or otherwise made available by a provision of law is hereby
reduced by one percent.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we have 10
minutes for debate on this amendment, 5 minutes controlled by me and 5
minutes controlled by the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that would cut
discretionary spending in the Agriculture, Rural Development, and Food
and Drug Administration spending bill by 1 percent. This bill, as it is
currently written, appropriates $17 billion in discretionary spending,
and reducing this funding by a mere 1 percent would leave us with a
funding level of $16.83 billion.
I hasten to say to the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) that I
am not doing this as a recrimination of the job that he or his
committee has done. It is my intention to offer this or similar
amendments on almost all of the appropriations bills. I had an
amendment such as this drafted for the labor bill last week, and
somehow or other it got lost in the shuffle, and we did not get it on.
But I intend to do this on most of the bills.
There are many good things in this bill, so I am not singling this
bill out to attack. I do this in recognition of the fact that we should
not be spending money that we simply do not have.
Current CBO projections indicate the Federal Government is likely to
end fiscal year 2003 with a deficit of more than $400 billion. Instead
of continuing to increase spending, I submit that we should exercise
fiscal restraint and work to alleviate shortfalls. Yet we continue to
pour money into programs with little concern for current economic
considerations.
While I realize that some programs funded under this legislation are
receiving a decrease from fiscal year 2003, there are still a number of
programs receiving substantial increases, and let me just highlight a
few of these programs. The rural housing loan authorization is funded
at $4.4 billion, an increase of $208.7 million over last year and $45.7
million over the President's budget request.
Distance learning and telemedicine program loans are funded at $636
million, which is an increase of $256 million over last year and $250
million above the President's budget request.
[[Page H6649]]
Conservation operations funded at $850 million, an increase of $30.4
million over last year and $136.4 million over the President's budget
request.
I am not attacking these individual programs. These are good
programs. But I am simply asking, can we afford these kind of
increases? Clearly, balancing the budget is no longer a priority in
this Congress. I think it should be. So I ask Members to support the 1
percent modest reduction in this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and
ask unanimous consent to control the 5 minutes in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Bonilla) is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the authorizing committee.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the
appropriations subcommittee for yielding me this time in strong
opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado.
I would say to the gentleman that I have supported his amendments
from time to time, but I do not believe he has looked at the facts
here. We are $872 million less than last year right now. That is far
greater than the 1 percent cut the gentleman is asking for. So we have
already done the work that he has asked for in this case.
Secondly, because of the fact we are already taking that huge a cut,
I can only say that the gentleman's amendment constitutes an assault on
rural America. This is something that we simply cannot tolerate.
The gentleman cited the few areas where there have been some
significant increases, one of those being telemedicine. As the
gentleman knows, the telemedicine program is designed to link rural
America, people in clinics and small hospitals and other rural
outposts, where they can get some health care treatment, with the major
university hospitals that get all the health care money in the first
place.
So if you cut out the money that allows them to tap into really good
health care provisions by being able to access them, and we held a
hearing on this subject in the committee just a couple of weeks ago on
the demonstration of the technology that can now reach rural America,
if we are able to get these thousands of sites in small communities
across America, which does cost a lot of money, and that is why I am
pleased the chairman of the subcommittee has put an increase in there
for this, if you cut that out, you are doing a lot more than just
cutting out that money. You are cutting out the ability of folks in the
smallest communities in the country from being able to finally get
access to the kind of quality health care that people in large urban
areas have, because they will be getting it from the same doctors with
the same expertise drawing those same big salaries at those
universities hospitals, and now they will be able to reach the smaller
communities.
So I would encourage the gentleman to look elsewhere for the kind of
savings that he is talking about here. I urge my colleagues to oppose
the amendment.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Goodlatte) for making some excellent points in opposition to this
amendment. He is absolutely correct.
Over $872 million is the figure that we are under last year's budget.
We are $136 million under the budget request. I would ask the gentleman
proposing the amendment, is this not enough? We are learning to tighten
the belt. We have cut the budget. We are lowering spending on this bill
and still trying to deal with the needs in this country, that this
country has in the areas of agriculture. So I cannot more firmly state
my opposition to this amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
and would respectfully ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Goodlatte), I was not suggesting that telemedicine is not a good thing
for rural America or some of these other things. I am simply saying
there are many spots in the agriculture bill where you could find the 1
percent I think that would not hurt rural America. I certainly do not
mean to make an assault on rural America.
For many years, every week I give a Porker of the Week Award for what
I consider to be wasteful spending. There is no department in the
Federal Government that has not received that award, and all of them
have received it at one time or another, defense, which I am most
interested in, and others have received it. There is no department that
has received it more than the Department of Agriculture over the years.
There is 1 percent there. I would hope we would take that 1 percent
out. I do commend the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) and the
committee on the cuts that have already been made. I just think we can
go a little further.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, at this time I would just once again state my strong
opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. HEFLEY. 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 Colorado
(Mr. Hefley) will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Holt
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Holt:
Add at the end (before the short title) the following new
section:
Sec. ____. For the program of public education regarding
the use of biotechnology in producing food for human
consumption, as authorized by section 10802 of the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-
171; 7 U.S.C. 5921a), $1,000,000, and the amount otherwise
provided by this Act for ``Agriculture Buildings and
Facilities and Rental Payments'' is hereby reduced by,
$1,000,000.
Mr. HOLT (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 New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering today will
provide $1 million to establish and develop the food biotechnology
public education program that was authorized in the Farm Act, H.R.
2646, during the 107th Congress, but was never funded.
The use of biotechnology, such as to produce genetically engineered
foods, has the potential to improve yields of nutritionally enhanced
foods with less land, reduced use of pesticides and herbicides, can
benefit farmers, consumers and the environment.
The history of agriculture has indeed been a history of progress. Now
there is an immediate and critical need for accurate information, both
on food production systems that have provided the American consumer
with a diversified and healthful food supply, and on the role of this
new technology in food production. It is only based on clear, accurate,
and scientific information that consumers can make sense of the often
sensational risk and benefit claims reported and rumored.
In 1999, for example, the journal ``Nature'' published a study
suggesting that pollen from genetically modified corn would harm the
monarch butterfly population. This sparked a worldwide controversy.
Follow-up studies have shown since that the pollen presents no
significant danger to monarchs, but the foundation of fear based on
emotion had been set, and soon other nonscience-based allegations about
biotechnology emerged.
[[Page H6650]]
I have been asked if this amendment is an anti-biotechnology or a
pro-biotechnology amendment. I would argue that it is an anti-ignorance
amendment. It is not to say that biotechnology is always benign under
all circumstances; but consumers, researchers, and farmers will benefit
from a public that is well informed and engaged in the debate about
food biotechnology.
Although food biotechnology has immense potential, consumers and
farmers have legitimate concerns regarding the safety of genetically
engineered foods. No one, however, is served by assertions from
ignorance. It is appropriate for the government to provide the public
with clear evidence-based information that helps consumers,
policymakers and others make informed choices about food.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, so that the
Department of Agriculture will have the necessary funding to carry out
this authorized program and so that the public will be best informed.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman raises some very legitimate points about
the need for funding in this area. However, this amendment was
presented to us at the 11th hour, and it is not even clear under the
language of this amendment how this money would be administered. So we
would be delighted to try to work with the gentleman down the road
between here and conference to see if we can do something on this.
However, at the 11th hour like this, when we are presented with an
amendment, I must oppose it at this time.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BONILLA. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, my amendment actually is silent on exactly
how the money would be allocated within the Department. Perhaps it
could be through the Food Safety and Inspection Service. But the point
is, this is authorized, and it is provided for under the authorization;
and I think it will be easy to fit into the Department's public
education activities.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BONILLA. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from New
Jersey, because I appreciated his comments about biotechnology and we
certainly do want the public to be educated about this, if he would not
take up the offer of the gentleman from Texas, the chairman of the
subcommittee, to work with him. Withdraw the amendment, work with him,
and see if there is not something that can be done as we move to
conference, because not knowing exactly how this money would be spent
is sort of like writing a blank check.
I think if we had a little more cooperation and a little more
communication about what we intended, then the Congress could actually
be the ones to specify that, and there might be some merit in the
gentleman's position.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, let me
ask the chairman of the authorizing committee if he did not have in
mind how this would be administered in the Department of Agriculture.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, let
me say I was not the chairman at the time the farm bill was written, so
I do not know the history of the intent in the language in the farm
bill. But, again, this is something that has just been brought to my
attention, and we would be happy to look into it and see what we can
find in that regard and try to achieve some specificity in terms of how
the dollars are going to be spent, if indeed we can do that. That, of
course, is up to the chairman of the subcommittee, but I would
certainly stand willing to work with the gentleman to try to find the
right formula and the right dollars that he has to squeeze out of an
already-tight process to do something in this area, because I think
what the gentleman from New Jersey is proposing is worthwhile.
{time} 1445
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield again.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield.
Mr. HOLT. With those assurances from both Chairs, recognizing that
the public debate is raging on and the need for this public information
is now, I would be willing to withdraw my amendment and to work with
the chairman, with the expectation that we can work something out in
the coming months in this session of Congress.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we would be happy to
have our staffs work together on that.
Again, just hearing about this amendment at this time, it is not
realistic to say we are going to guarantee a solution, but I think that
the history that we have on this subcommittee to try to work with
Members to work through these problems is real, and we would be happy
to do that.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the amendment is
withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Bonilla
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Bonilla:
On page 29, line 15, strike all after the word ``Service''
through, and including, ``(16 U.S.C. 3841(a))'' on line 20.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is to strike a
provision from the Conservation Operations account that prohibits the
funds in this account from being used to pay for the salaries and
expenses of personnel to provide technical assistance for several
mandatory conservation programs.
This amendment is in keeping with an agreement that I made with the
chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Goodlatte), in hopes that we can ensure that there are adequate
funds available for conservation technical assistance. I would point
out that the 2002 Farm Bill included an increase of more than $17
billion for conservation programs, but I am committed to work with the
chairman to try to come up with the solution to funding of conservation
technical assistance.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I will not use the 5 minutes. I just want to say to the
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture
that this amendment is pursuant to discussions that we had and we very
much appreciate his offering it. We think that this will be very
helpful in making sure that conservation dollars actually reach the
people who need it: America's farmers and ranchers. This will also help
to resolve some of the issues regarding the allocation of those funds.
So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin). The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla).
The amendment was agreed to.
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I rise
for the purposes of entering into a colloquy with the gentleman from
Texas (Chairman Bonilla) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur),
the ranking member.
Mr. Chairman, last year's farm bill authorized the Resident
Instruction and Distance Education Grants Program for the Insular Areas
to address the critical agricultural research needs of the Land Grant
Universities in the U.S. territories and Puerto Rico. We receive very
little by way of formula funds, t-star grants, and other special
grants.
Existing programs simply do not orient themselves toward the Land
Grant Universities in the insular areas. Additionally, our universities
have seen no money under the National Research Initiative, the flagship
agricultural research program. While our institutions are 1862s by
definition, they have only been established as Land Grant Universities
for the past 3 decades. This, coupled with the decline in funds for the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service overall,
makes competing with other institutions very difficult. So last year
Congress authorized a new funding mechanism to provide competitively
awarded grants to meet the unique needs of this underserved set of
universities.
[[Page H6651]]
This new authorization is especially important to the Land Grant
Universities in the insular areas because it will help them to develop
education and training programs while working in collaboration with
leading U.S. universities on the mainland, building on their expertise
and helping us to make the best possible use of limited program
dollars.
This year's appropriation bill has no funds whatsoever for this new
program. As the Land Grant Universities in the insular areas face many
critical agricultural research needs, including food safety and
security, health and nutrition, and the environment, I am hopeful that
this new program will be funded in the near future. Although my request
to fund this account in this cycle has not been met, I am grateful for
the inclusion of report language that speaks to this need. I know that
the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) and the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), our ranking member, are supportive of the Land Grant
Universities in the insular areas, and I urge them to utilize this new
program to ensure the survival of these institutions.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. BORDALLO. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentlewoman for
bringing this matter to our attention. It is a very important issue. We
recognize the needs of these institutions to be unique and deserving of
additional support. The committee has included report language
encouraging the Department to better assist the Land Grant Universities
in the insular areas and provide us a report describing what steps the
Department is currently taking to meet their unique needs.
I look forward to working with the gentlewoman and delegates to
ensure that the needs of the Land Grant Universities in the insular
areas are met the best way we possibly can.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. BORDALLO. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I just want to commend the gentlewoman from
Guam for bringing these issues to our attention and to say what a great
leader she is on agriculture for the insular areas. We really, without
her leadership, would not have been made aware. I know both the
chairman and I, as ranking member, are very grateful to her, and we
look forward to working with her through conference and for a final
bill to be produced.
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I will place in the Record at this point
a statement from my colleague, the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr.
Faleomavaega), as well as a joint letter signed by myself, the Resident
Commissioner of Puerto Rico, the delegate from the Virgin Islands, and
the delegate from American Samoa.
U.S. Congress,
Washington, DC, March 19, 2003.
Hon. Henry Bonilla,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, House
Committee on Appropriations, Rayburn House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: We are writing to request that $15
million be provided in the Fiscal Year 2004 agriculture
appropriations bill for the Resident Instruction and Distance
Education Grants Program for Insular Area Institutions of
Higher Education. This program was authorized by last year's
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (Sec. 7501; Public Law
107-171) to strengthen instruction, curriculum and research
in the food and agricultural sciences. With this funding the
program would enhance the quality of teaching and learning at
our nation's land-grant universities in the U.S. territories.
Collaboration between faculty and students at institutions
of higher education in the U.S. territories with colleagues
in the U.S. mainland is particularly challenging given the
distance between them. Current fragile economic conditions in
the U.S. territories also compound the challenges posed by
their geographic isolation. Nevertheless, these institutions
boast sound and reputable programs in agriculture, natural
resources, forestry, veterinary medicine, home economics, and
disciplines closely allied to the food and agriculture
production and delivery systems. The primary and secondary
science and agricultural teachers of these institutions often
lack proper credentials though. A distance education program
is desperately needed by these educators. Because of the high
cost of shipping to the U.S. territories, food costs are high
and families are often forced to make unhealthy choices.
These unhealthy choices compound an already high incidence of
chronic diseases such as diabetes, obesity and heart disease
among the populations of the insular areas. Strengthening
health and diet outreach education would help to prevent
unnecessary trauma for many families. Expertise in
environmental management is limited in the islands of insular
areas. The insular area land grants are the primary source of
higher education for the region and environmental education
programs need to be created and strengthened. Building the
capacity of the insular area land grants in the areas of
distance education, agriculture, health and nutrition and
environmental management will improve the overall quality of
life and education for U.S. citizens who live in these areas.
Designating $15 million for this program through the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service's (CSREES) research and education activities account
is vitally important if we are to support the learning
communities of the U.S. territories and provide them the
ability to partner with other institutions in the U.S.
mainland. Harnessing technology in support of institutional
capacity-building in this regard is essential for the success
of the land-grant universities in the U.S. territories. Thank
you for your consideration of this request. Please do not
hesitate to contact us should you have any questions or
should you be in need of further information.
Sincerely,
Anibal Acevedo-Vila,
Donna M. Christensen,
Madeleine Z. Bordallo,
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega,
Members of Congress.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Ackerman
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Ackerman:
Add at the end (before the short title) the following new
section:
Sec. ____. None of the funds appropriated or made available
by this Act may be used to approve for human consumption
pursuant to the Federal Meat Inspection Act any cattle,
sheep, swine, goats, horses, mules, or other equines that are
unable to stand or walk unassisted at a slaughtering,
packing, meat-canning, rendering, or similar establishment
subject to inspection at the point of examination and
inspection, as required by section 3(a) of the Federal Meat
Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 603(a)).
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on the
pending amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman)
and any amendments thereto be limited to 30 minutes, to be equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise today to introduce the Ackerman-LaTourette amendment which
would prohibit the USDA from expending any funds to approve meat from
downed animals for human foods.
This, Mr. Chairman, is a downed animal. Downed animals are livestock
who collapse, often for unknown reasons. They are unable to walk,
unable to stand. Animals such as these are inhumanely dragged, very
often by ropes and by chains, into stockyards where they often spend
days lying in their own feces. They are sometimes covered in E. coli
and are at high risk for illnesses such as mad cow disease.
The smart and humane businesses in this country, such as McDonald's
and Wendy's and Burger King, all refuse to accept the meat of downed
animals. They recognize how harmful it could be to their industry and
what a looming disaster it would be to this country if mad cow disease
entered our food chain. The USDA, as a matter of fact, prohibits the
use of downed animals in our own school lunch programs throughout this
country; and yet these downed animals such as this find their way into
our food supply and are on the shelves in our supermarkets, our butcher
shops, and our restaurants. If these downed animals are not safe enough
and not adequate enough for the fast food restaurants or for our
children in school, why are they put on America's supermarket shelves?
The answer, Mr. Chairman, has nothing to do with cows. It has to do
with pigs. It has to do with greed. For the sake of making a few bucks,
getting us to eat a crippled cow such as this can cripple the entire
industry. Less than 1 percent of all animals are downed animals, not a
big dent in the industry.
Mr. Chairman, just a few months ago, a mad cow was discovered across
our border in Alberta, Canada. Their meat standards are almost as good
as ours, and that one mad cow was a downed
[[Page H6652]]
animal. That discovery is not a coincidence. Study after study after
study shows that downed cows are much more predisposed to having mad
cow disease than the general population. The USDA has conducted a study
and has concluded that if mad cow disease ever did occur in the United
States, it would most likely be found among downed cattle than the
general cattle population.
Just one infected mad cow crippled all of Canada's meat industry. We
do not buy cows from Canada anymore. They are absolutely devastated.
Canada should be a lesson to us. We must pass this legislation.
The bipartisan amendment that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
LaTourette) and I introduce today will improve the safety of our food
supply and prevent animals such as these from entering our food chain.
Last year, we passed this measure in Congress. This year, we have 115
sponsors of this legislation. It is absolutely imperative that we pass
this. In the name of food safety, in the name of the humane treatment
of animals, please pass the Ackerman-LaTourette amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of
the authorizing committee.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a very bad idea from a public health
safety standpoint. The way that we inspect animals to prevent animals
with anything from BSE to a whole host of other diseases from getting
into the food chain is through the process whereby the animals are
slaughtered. When they show up at the slaughterhouses, that is where
the veterinarians are on hand to inspect them and to make sure that
animals that are not healthy do not get into the food chain. They are
pulled off the line at that point in time and the public has that
safety assurance.
If we require that downed animals are euthanized on the farm and
never get to that point in the processing system, we are going to drive
this whole process literally underground.
The problem that we have is that the animals will then be buried on
the farm or disposed of in some other way, perhaps even put into the
food chain illegitimately, because that farmer has absolutely no
incentive to do anything otherwise. It is a cost to them, and there is
no compensation to them whatsoever.
So if you have an animal that has BSE, and we certainly hope that
that never occurs in this country, but if it does, we will never know
it if this amendment passes because that animal will never get to the
veterinarian to be inspected to determine whether or not it has that
illness.
Therefore, this is a very, very bad idea. The humane thing to do for
the animal, to have it euthanized at a place in the process where the
veterinarians are on hand and can properly inspect it, is the way to go
here. It is very important that when animals are downed we find out why
they are downed. It might simply be a dislocated hip or something else
that is no danger to human consumption, but if it is an animal that has
a serious disease, we want to know if that animal has spread that
disease to other animals in the area, whether other animals on that
farm have the same problem.
{time} 1500
If they never get to the veterinarian, we will never find that out;
and, therefore, this will become a very serious human health problem if
we adopt this amendment.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman makes a very, very
important point. Unfortunately, he refers to previous legislation that
the gentleman and I discussed.
What we are doing here is we are not preventing the animal from
getting there. We are preventing it from entering the food supply so
people do not eat these crippled, diseased, pathetic animals as part of
their hamburger or steak that they unwittingly buy at the supermarket.
This just prevents the use of any funds from approving this animal from
entering the food supply. It does not prevent the animal from being
tested. It does not prevent the animal from being researched.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman's point does not
cure the problem. And the reason it does not is that there is still a
lack of incentive for that farmer to ship that animal to the
veterinarian if he knows before it ever gets on his truck that he will
not be able to get any compensation for it, any certification for it no
matter what is wrong with the animal.
As I indicated, if the animal simply has a dislocated hip or some
other ailment that does not make the animal unsound for human
consumption, then the farmer has absolutely no incentive whatsoever to
ever get it to the slaughter house.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the distinguished ranking member
of the authorizing committee.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time. I will be glad to yield to my friend from New York at any time on
the point, but I think some of the points the gentleman from Virginia
(Chairman Goodlatte) made need to be reemphasized.
Existing statutes and regulations are sufficient to address the issue
of preventing conscious, nonambulatory livestock from being inhumanely
handled prior to slaughter.
Now, there are differences of opinion as to what is ``inhumanely
handled,'' and I respect those who have a different opinion than I
have. Now, Federal and State veterinarians at slaughter establishments
are best capable of identifying and segregating suspect animals from
entering the food chain. FSIS personnel verify that disabled livestock
handling procedures are carried out to ensure that nonambulatory
animals are set apart and humanely slaughtered. That is what the
chairman was pointing out will no longer happen if the gentleman's
amendment is passed.
In accordance with the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry
Products Inspection Act, FSIS inspectors conduct anti-mortem inspection
of livestock. Unconscious, disabled livestock cannot receive anti-
mortem inspection and must be condemned and disposed of in accordance
with FSIS regulations and the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. Non-
ambulatory, disabled livestock that have not received anti-mortem
inspection and cannot be humanely moved must be humanely condemned
before they may be transported from the slaughter establishment's
premises.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I should point out that the gentleman,
who is a distinguished leader and authority in this area and someone
for whom I have the greatest respect, is absolutely right. However,
what we are dealing here with is an amendment that does not disrupt
this process whatsoever. All of those things can and should take place
from the time the animal is grazing to the time it is in the yard to
the time it is being shipped and even prior to slaughter.
The only thing that we prevent is the animal from being consumed by
the American public. Every single one of us has constituents that eat
meat. Some of us have the majority of our constituents. And the
American people, 0 percent of them say they will not eat the product of
a downed animal such as this.
Mr. STENHOLM. And that sick animal will never find its way into the
food chain under the current law that we are enforcing today.
BSE was talked about. It is extremely critical that we do not create
a situation in which downed animals which have very good food value,
simply because they may have had a dislocated hip or a broken leg still
have food value, not be discouraged from coming to the marketplace,
which is exactly what the gentleman intends to do; and I respect his
desire for doing that. But in the handling of livestock, it is
extremely important that livestock continue to be handled as we are
doing it under FSIS, particularly with the BSE question.
[[Page H6653]]
It is extremely important that BSE-suspect animals are tested; and,
accordingly, right now USDA's aggressive BSE surveillance system
targets these animals, the ones we are talking about for testing.
During fiscal year 2001, USDA tested 5,272 head. In fiscal 2002, 19,990
head, more than 40 times the internationally recognized standard for
appropriate surveillance for a country that has never detected BSE
within its borders.
It is extremely important that the suspect animals get into the
inspection system. But I fear because of those who believe that any
animal that cannot walk should be immediately destroyed wherever it is,
this will do some real harm potentially to the future of the very food
safety issues that the gentleman is trying to correct.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman should know that we do not
prevent the animal from being tested anywhere, including right up to
the slaughter house. We do not deny funds for the testing of the
animal. We want the animals to be tested. We want to make a
determination as to where the animal came from if he does test positive
for mad cow disease or any other kind of disease. What we are saying is
that we are going to deny funds under this amendment to those animals,
such as this one here, from entering the food chain and from being
consumed by my constituents or your constituents.
Mr. STENHOLM. Reclaiming my time, the chairman has been overly
generous in sharing of his limited time with me.
I repeat, the picture the gentleman is showing, that sick animal will
never find its way into the food chain. Period.
It does no service to this institution to continue to show that.
This amendment would create a disincentive to producers. The
gentleman does not understand the cattle business as many in this body
do. I understand the sentiments in what you are trying to correct, but
the amendment would have a totally different result.
I thank the chairman for his generosity.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin). The gentleman from
New York (Mr. Ackerman) has 12 minutes left.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
I rise in strong support of the amendment by my very dedicated
colleague from New York. His amendment would prohibit for human
consumption any meat or meat food product derived from a downed animal.
I might say to my dear friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm), a recognized leader in agriculture, that the U.S. Department
of Agriculture has already as part of its procedures adopted
regulations that ban the purchase of meat from downed animals by its
own procurement agencies. So let there be no mistake that our
Department of Agriculture believes that it already has the authority to
take that action internally.
Let me also say that the Department has estimated that nationally
about 190,000 animals every year get so sick that they are unable to
stand or walk and they are dragged to slaughter facilities and many of
them end up in our food supply. But only about 5 percent of those
animals are tested for serious diseases such as mad cow disease.
Now, many probably know that the recent mad cow found in Canada was a
downed animal; that the president of the Alberta Beef Producers
remarked about ``cows too sick to walk, too sick to stand have no
business being part of the food system. This animal should have never
left the farm.''
A 2001 study from Germany found that downed animals were anywhere
from 10 to 240 times more likely to test positive for BSE than were
ambulatory cows. And we all agree, I think we all know, that downed
cattle have a higher risk of having BSE, and we should not be sending
these animals to slaughter where they may ultimately end up on
somebody's dinner table.
Farm Sanctuary used the Freedom of Information Act to analyze USDA
slaughter house records for 938 facilities from 1999 through June 2001.
They found 73 percent of downed animals passed for human consumption
while 27 percent were condemned. But startlingly, among the downed
animals approved for human consumption, included afflictions such as
gangrene, malignant cancers and pneumonia. These were common.
I think the heart of the gentleman from New York's (Mr. Ackerman)
proposal is, why are we sending these animals that should be euthanized
and disposed of to auction markets and slaughter houses where they will
contaminate healthy animals and, indeed, human health?
The August 2001 issue of ``Dairy Herd Management'' named downed
animals as the most important area where the industry needs to clean up
its act. So I want to rise in support of the Ackerman amendment. I
think the gentleman is moving us all, moving the country toward a
better standard, a higher standard. The USDA has already recognized
that standard and adopted on its own meat procurement practices. I want
to thank the gentleman for helping move America ahead. I think this
amendment's consideration today will go a long way in helping to clean
up this problem for the American people.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman)
has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 6 minutes
remaining.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the authorizing committee.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Kaptur) because she is responding to exactly the same amendment that
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) has informed us he has
modified from provisions that he has offered earlier as well.
The gentlewoman wants to keep the animals from ever being shipped to
the slaughter house. The slaughter house is where the inspection takes
place to determine whether or not the animal has BSE. So if the
gentlewoman accomplishes her goal, she is defeating that purpose.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) has said he has modified
his amendment so that only funds cannot be expended for the purpose of
certifying the animal for processing. That has still the same problem.
The farmer will have no incentive to get that animal to the place where
the veterinarians are so that inspection can take place. If we had
billions of dollars to have veterinarians go to every farm, maybe they
could accomplish their goal; but we do not have that kind of money. The
farmers do not have the money. They are not going to spend it. So they
would be risking public health by refusing to have the process work the
way it was designed. Have the animals go to the slaughter house, be
inspected.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Let me respond, first to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), my
good friend, I may not be in the cattle business; but I can tell a good
steak when I see one. This does not a good steak make, and that is
exactly the point.
And in answer to both questions to both the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm) and the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Goodlatte), there is a greater picture that some might argue about
testing anywhere along the process and euthanizing the animal prior to
reaching the marketplace. That is all well and good, and we could argue
those points; but that is not what this amendment is all about. This
amendment does not prevent any of that from happening.
This specific amendment does not touch any of the testing procedures.
[[Page H6654]]
We want the animals tested. There are those who even have a greater
picture; and they would say, let us not eat meat at all. That is not
the purpose of this gentleman, and that is not the purpose of this
amendment.
This amendment says after you go through all of these processes and
all of these wonderful things that are in place right now, why
jeopardize it all for the sake of making a few bucks and jeopardize the
entire cattle industry, a major American industry, for the sake of
making a few bucks off a couple of crippled animals, less than .63
percent of the entire population. It makes no sense.
One mad cow has closed them down in Canada. Do we want that to happen
in the United States?
There is a humanitarian issue here for those of us who appreciate the
inhumane treatment of animals, and there is a public-safety issue. And
if nothing else, for goodness sake, look at the public-safety issue and
look at what happened to Canada. Granted, we do a little bit better
job, we think; but one mad cow is all it will take to shut down our
industry.
{time} 1515
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ACKERMAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
I will not use the full time. I just wanted to say to my good friend
from Virginia, the chairman of the authorizing committee, that the
normal way, place the animal would be downed would be at the
slaughterhouse anyway.
The point we are trying to make is do not put it in the food chain.
That is the heart of the gentleman from New York's (Mr. Ackerman)
amendment which he has not changed. So I just wanted to clarify that,
and I also am concerned that at that slaughter facility that that
diseased animal not contaminate the other animals. So there is a
tremendous burden on that slaughterhouse, but the point of the
gentleman from New York's (Mr. Ackerman) argument and amendment is do
not put that sick animal in the food chain.
I support his amendment, and I thank the gentleman for offering it.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say that I greatly appreciate the
points that the authorizers have made today in opposition to this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin). The gentleman from
New York (Mr. Ackerman) has 6 minutes remaining.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ACKERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I think it is imperative that we distinguish between sick animals and
downer animals. There is a big difference, and I think the author of
the amendment and some of the arguments made, including by my good
friend from Ohio, is tending to mix up downers and sick.
We all agree sick animals have no place in our food chain, period;
and I would submit under current law that is a occurring 99.9999
percent of the time. No one can be perfect.
On the question of BSE, I worry about us continuing to be able to
reassure the American public since in 2002 we tested 19,990 cattle, 40
times the international standard, but of those 19,990, 14,000 were
downer animals. It is critical that we continue to look at downers to
make sure they are not sick and remove them from the food chain, but
when we read the gentleman's amendment today, I really respectfully say
it would create a disincentive for producers to send downers to market.
We agree with the basic statement of keeping the animals out of the
food chain that are sick. It is a question of how we best do it.
Therefore, I respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment in the
belief that it will not accomplish what we all agree we need to do, and
that is keep sick animals out but allow downer animals that can be
humanely consumed to continue to be presented so we can make that
determination as to whether they are sick or consumable.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the
gentleman's sentiments and how articulately he presents them. We have a
great deal of sympathy with what he is trying to accomplish, and one of
the things the industry is trying to accomplish is to squeeze every
nickel out of every head of cattle regardless of whether it is
ambulatory, nonambulatory or anything else. There should be a
disincentive for people bringing animals that are sick or diseased or
nonambulatory to the market for the sake of making a couple of dollars
on \1/2\ of 1 percent of the entire cattle industry in America.
The fact that we do 40 times more testing and a better job than the
average in the world, I am not impressed by that argument that we do
better than places like Saudi Arabia and the Sudan and other places
which bolster our numbers in how good we are.
Take a look at Canada. They do 40 percent better than the rest of the
world, also. It took one mad cow who was a downed animal to shut down
the entire industry. The industry here needs to be saved from itself.
For the sake of that \1/2\ of 1 percent, they are jeopardizing their
entire business.
The humane aspect of this, I do not want to hold these pictures up
continuously for the rest of this debate nor shall I, but the point is,
the pictures are troubling. They are disturbing. Nobody likes to look
at that. But if we think we go to the supermarket and buy some chopped
meat and our own hamburger out of meat that McDonald's would not touch,
out of meat that Wendy's would not touch, out of meat that Burger King
would have no part of, out of meat that the USDA says, my goodness,
keep this off the plates and tables of our schoolchildren as they have
their lunches, it is unfair, it is unsafe, that the industry would say
let us sneak this in and have these animals be put up for sale for the
unsuspecting American public.
According to a Zogby poll, four out of every five Americans has said
they would not touch this meat if they knew it came from a downed
animal, but they do not know that it came from a downed animal, Mr.
Chairman.
What we are doing here with this amendment is we are saying that the
animal can be tested on the farm, it can be tested where it falls, it
can be tested when it is in transit, it can be tested in the
stockyards, it can be tested right up to the point of slaughter, do all
the testing, make the determination, keep the statistics, but do not
then put it into the food supply for the American people. Food safety
demands better, and humanity to animals demands better.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ACKERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, just a very important point, I
think bovine spongiform encephalitis, BSE, has never been found in the
United States. We have the most strict meat inspection in the world,
and if we pass this resolution the danger is that we complicate the
inspection of those downed animals. Downed animals in this country do
not go into the human food chain without a thorough health safety
investigation.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his remarks.
We are not compromising the testing system at all. Test to your
heart's content. Test and retest and double test. We agree with that.
But, in the end, after all the tests, do not subject the American
people to eating these downed animals.
On the gentleman's second point, that in the history of this country
we have never found mad cow disease, I just want to point out that
until one mad cow, who was a downed animal, came along, Canada had
never found a mad cow in their country either. Look what has happened
to them. Do not let it happen here in the name of food safety. In the
name of the humane treatment of animals, do not allow that to happen
here.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
Ackerman-LaTourette Amendment which would end the sale of ``downed
animal meat'' for human consumption. Simply put, this Amendment would
take
[[Page H6655]]
livestock that is too diseased, too weak, or too injured to even stand
on its own feet out of our food chain.
American families do not want to put downed animal meat products on
their dinner tables, and they do not want to worry about whether the
meat products purchased from a restaurant contains meat from downed
animals. As a matter of fact, new animal welfare standards followed by
burger-giants McDonald's, Burger King, and Wendy's have ended the
purchase of meat from downed animals in their food products. I applaud
these moves and America's consumers applaud them as well.
Common sense, as well as scientific data, says that the meat taken
from a downed animal is unfit for human consumption--its risk of
bacterial contamination and other diseases is much much higher than the
meat taken from a healthy animal. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
records show that downed animals are often afflicted with gangrene,
malignant lymphoma, pneumonia, and other serious illnesses. According
to the Food and Drug Administration downed animals are responsible for
half of the drug residue found in meat because these animals are often
very sick animals, and therefore, are often receiving a variety of drug
treatments. Why would anyone want to take a chance and eat this meat?
Not only would this legislation remove tainted meat from the American
marketplace, it would help improve the treatment of animals at auctions
and slaughterhouses. Most downed animals are old dairy cows, crippled
veal calves, and sometimes injured beef cattle. These downed animals,
too weak to stand up on their own, are often shocked with electricity,
moved with bulldozers, kicked and dragged, all in the effort to move
them along the assembly lines to be slaughtered.
Mr. Chairman, our Nation has made great strides in food processing
and food production over many years. We've come a long way since the
publication of Upton Sinclair's famous century-old work, ``The
Jungle.'' But there's still a lot of needless cruelty that goes on in
these places. Upton Sinclair wrote back then that the animals were
strung up one by one in a ``cold-blooded, impersonal way, without a
pretense of apology.'' This still occurs today.
For instance, cows with broken legs are often left for hours or even
days without food and water, let alone veterinary care. There is no
excuse for this cruel and inhumane treatment in a civilized society.
For the sake of our society, our animals, and those who eat meat
products, the practice of slaughtering and consuming downed animals
must be brought to an end.
Americans rightly do not want to eat meat from downed animals nor do
they want to see downed animals cruelly treated the way they are at our
slaughterhouses and animal auctions. Five months after the publication
of ``The Jungle,'' President Theodore Roosevelt and Congress took
action by passing the first ``Pure Food and Drug Act'' and the first
``Meat Inspection Act.''
Mr. Chairman, Congress needs to act again. Americans want animals to
be treated properly, and they want their food to be safe. I urge
Members to support and vote for the Ackerman-LaTourette amendment.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, as Co-Chair of the Congressional Friends of
Animals Caucus I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Ackerman
Downed Animal Amendment.
Animals too weak, from sickness or injury, to stand or walk are
routinely pushed, kicked, dragged, and prodded with electric shocks at
auctions and intermediate markets, in an effort to move them to
slaughter.
There is no excuse for this unnecessary torment.
The Ackerman amendment will protect these downed animals by
discouraging their transport to livestock markets and requiring they be
humanely euthanized.
Some greedy individuals know livestock sold for human consumption
will bring a higher price than livestock sold for other purposes. To
them, the money is more important than the suffering of the animals. In
moving these animals to auctions and other markets, these individuals
display a cruel disregard for the animals. They also ignore the fact
that meat from these animals may be unfit for consumption.
Downed animals do not deserve this kind of cruel treatment, and
consumers do not deserve to be subjected to the risk of buying
contaminated meat products.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time having expired, the question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. ACKERMAN. 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 New York (Mr. Ackerman)
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.
Goodlatte) having assumed the chair, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, 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. 2673) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, had come
to no resolution thereon.
____________________