[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 96 (Tuesday, July 13, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H5581-H5615]
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, 2005

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 710 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 4766.

                              {time}  1504


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 4766) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related

[[Page H5582]]

Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Bass in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, the 
amendment by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) had been disposed 
of and the bill was open for amendment at any point.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce).
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy 
with the gentleman.
  Over the past 3 years, the Agriculture appropriations bill has funded 
a very important aquaculture research program at the Ohio State 
University which is in my district but which serves the entire State. I 
am concerned that language in this year's bill might divert that 
funding away from the Ohio State University. I support this project in 
its current form and am proud of the work that has been accomplished. 
Given that this historical funding arrangement has worked well in the 
past, I would like to ask the chairman to work with me in conference to 
ensure that this aquaculture funding continues to be directed toward 
the Ohio State University.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to work with my friend 
from Ohio to ensure that these funds continue to go to the Ohio State 
University as they have in the past.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Chairman.


            Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma

  Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

                TITLE __--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. __. (a) Section 1241(b) of the Food Security Act of 
     1985 (16 U.S.C. 3841(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and 
     inserting ``paragraphs (2) through (4)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Farmland protection program, grassland reserve 
     program, environmental quality incentives program, wildlife 
     habitat incentives program, and ground and surface water 
     conservation program.--
       ``(A) In general.--Effective for fiscal year 2005 and 
     subsequent fiscal years, Commodity Credit Corporation funds 
     made available to carry out a conservation program specified 
     in paragraphs (4) through (7) of subsection (a) of this 
     section or the ground and surface water conservation program 
     under section 1240I shall not be available for the provision 
     of technical assistance for any other of such programs.
       ``(B) Separation of ground and surface water conservation 
     program from the environmental quality incentives program.--
     For purposes of subparagraph (A), the ground and surface 
     water conservation program under section 1240I shall be 
     considered to be a program separate and apart from the rest 
     of the environmental quality incentives program under chapter 
     4 of subtitle D.
       ``(4) Conservation reserve program and wetlands reserve 
     program.--Effective for fiscal year 2005 and subsequent 
     fiscal years, Commodity Credit Corporation funds made 
     available to carry out a conservation program specified in 
     paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) shall be available for 
     the provision of technical assistance for the program.''.

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) reserves a point 
of order.
  Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my 
amendment printed as No. 4 in the Congressional Record.
  I know that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and his staff have 
worked diligently to create this year's bill under a very tight 
allocation.
  In fiscal year 2003, USDA cut $284 million from the Environmental 
Quality Incentives Program, the Farmland Protection Program, Wildlife 
Habitat Incentives Program, and the Grassland Reserves Program. I would 
like to include USDA's fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004 chart of 
donor and recipient programs for the Record.
  Most of this money was spent to provide technical assistance for each 
of the aforementioned programs. However, language in FY 2003's omnibus 
allowed USDA to take money from those four programs and provide 
technical assistance for the Conservation Reserve Program and the 
Wetlands Reserve Program. In FY 2004, USDA diverted almost $80 million 
to CRP and WRP. This creation of donor programs was caused by various 
interpretations of the 2000 farm bill and, unfortunately, has ended in 
four important programs being drained of funds.
  The budget recently passed by the House provided a fix for CRP and 
WRP so they would be able to pay for their own technical assistance. 
Unless the Senate acts on the budget, I am afraid that we will once 
again see the four donor programs losing a great amount of funding to 
CRP and WRP.
  I have held numerous hearings on technical assistance issues, and it 
is hard to find a solution. Since the Senate has not passed the budget, 
the only fair solution is for each program, each program to pay for its 
own technical assistance. If we do not address this issue, USDA has 
estimated that for FY 2004, $100 million will be transferred from EQIP, 
Farmland Protection, WEP, GRP in order to provide technical assistance. 
This number is most likely only to grow larger in FY 2005.
  Consider for a moment that the Farmland Protection Program this year 
is $112 million. And WEP, the Wildlife Enhancements Program, is $60 
million. Based on last year's number, the $100 million spent on 
technical assistance for CRP and WRP is more than the entire WEP 
program and almost as much as the entire Farmland Protection Program. I 
urge Members to support this amendment.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) insist on 
his point of order?
  Mr. BONILLA. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I do make a point of order against the amendment 
because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation 
in an appropriations bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule 
XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general 
appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
  This amendment directly amends existing law.
  I would also like to point out in this point of order that the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) is an outstanding Member who works 
with us on many issues in this bill, and this issue is especially 
important to him and we recognize that.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds this amendment proposes directly to amend existing 
law. The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of 
clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained, and the 
amendment is not in order.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act to the Secretary of Agriculture for 
     expenditure for the school lunch or breakfast programs may be 
     used, after December 31, 2004, to purchase chickens or 
     chicken products from companies that do not have a stated 
     policy that such companies do not use fluoroquinolone 
     antibiotics in their chickens.

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) reserves a point 
of order on the amendment.
  Pursuant to the order of the House today, the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Brown) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, survival of the fittest has its downside. When an 
antibiotic is used on the bacteria in a person or animal, it may kill 
some of the bacteria, but it will not kill all of them. The survivors 
reproduce, propagating these heartier antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

[[Page H5583]]

  Antibiotic resistance, as we have discussed on this floor for several 
years, is a serious and growing threat; 38 Americans die every day. 
Thirty-eight Americans die every day from antibiotic-resistant 
infections according to the World Health Organization. Some estimates 
suggest that the number is twice that size.
  Antibiotic resistance costs the American health care system an 
estimated $4 billion every year. The Centers for Disease Control has 
called antibiotic resistance one of its top concerns.
  Human medicine is partly to blame. The CDC has launched a campaign to 
better educate doctors and patients about the dangers of antibiotic 
overuse. But animal agriculture is also to blame. Some 70 percent of 
antibiotic use in America is not for people but for cows, for pigs, for 
chickens and for other animals we eat. About 70 percent of those 
antibiotics are used not on sick animals but either to prevent illness 
prophylactically, or just to make healthy animals grow faster.
  The overuse of antibiotics in animal agriculture has serious 
consequences. Fluoroquinolones, the class of antibiotics that includes 
Cipro, are a disturbing example. Cipro is used to treat food-borne 
infections from a bacterium called camplobacter. The FDA approved 
fluoroquinolones for use in human medicine in 1986, and for use in 
chickens in 1995. During the 9 years between 1986 and 1995, Mr. 
Chairman, no more than 3 percent of cases in the U.S. involved 
resistant bacteria. But just 2 years after FDA approved 
fluoroquinolones for use in chickens, resistance in humans had jumped 
to 13 percent. From 3 percent to 13 percent after the FDA okayed its 
use in chickens.
  By 2001, 19 percent of these infections in humans were Cipro-
resistant. Private industry has recognized the problem and has begun to 
respond. McDonald's, Wendy's and others will no longer buy products 
made from chickens raised with fluoroquinolones. And leading chicken 
producers like Tyson, Gold Kist, Purdue have also committed to stop 
using fluoroquinolones.
  The American Medical Association, Consumers Union and other public 
health and consumer advocates believe it is time for the government to 
catch up to industry and take action on antibiotic resistance. Mr. 
Chairman, the National School Lunch Program lags behind. The USDA still 
buys chickens raised with fluoroquinolones.
  Last year, this Congress decided it was time to act. The conference 
report for the 2004 ag appropriations bill strongly encouraged USDA to 
buy chickens for the School Lunch Program only from companies that do 
not use fluoroquinolones. That language was approved by bipartisan 
majorities in each House. The bill accompanying it was signed by the 
President; but, unfortunately, the Department of Agriculture did 
nothing.
  The amendment I have offered was worded to closely track the language 
we approved last year. The difference is under my amendment, we are not 
asking this time, we are telling. Unfortunately, that is also why my 
amendment is subject to a point of order and I must withdraw it. Before 
I do, I invite the chairman and all of my colleagues to work with me to 
address this issue as the USDA bill advances.
  We asked USDA to do something last year in the strongest terms. It 
ignored us. Let us tell them we expect better this year. Let us tell 
the USDA we are serious about protecting the American people from a 
growing and serious problem, antibiotic resistance.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BONILLA. The gentleman raises a very important issue, and we 
addressed this with report language in last year's bill. We will 
continue to try to work with the gentleman on this issue.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Texas.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1515


            Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma

  Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

                TITLE __--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. __. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act 
     for the 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-3839aa-9), the Wildlife Habitat 
     Incentive Program authorized by section 1240N of such Act (16 
     U.S.C. 3839bb-1), the Grassland Reserve Program authorized by 
     subchapter C of chapter 2 of such subtitle (16 U.S.C. 3838n-
     3838q), or the Farmland Protection Program authorized by 
     subchapter B of such chapter 2 (16 U.S.C. 3838h-3838j) may be 
     used to provide technical assistance under the Conservation 
     Reserve Program authorized by subchapter B of chapter 1 of 
     such subtitle (16 U.S.C. 3831-3835a) or under the Wetlands 
     Reserve Program authorized by subchapter C of such chapter 1 
     (16 U.S.C. 3837-3837f).
       (b) None of the funds made available in this Act for the 
     Conservation Reserve Program authorized by subchapter B of 
     chapter 1 of subtitle D of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 
     U.S.C. 3831-3835a) may be used to provide technical 
     assistance under the Wetlands Reserve Program authorized by 
     subchapter C of such chapter (16 U.S.C. 3837-3837f).
       (c) None of the funds made available in this Act for the 
     Wetlands Reserve Program authorized by subchapter C of 
     chapter 1 of subtitle D of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 
     U.S.C. 3837-3837f) may be used to provide technical 
     assistance under the Conservation Reserve Program authorized 
     by subchapter B of such chapter (16 U.S.C. 3831-3835a).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
  Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  My amendment No. 5 simply prohibits funding from being transferred 
from EQIP, WHIP, GRP, and FRPP to other conservation programs such as 
CRP and WRP for the purpose of technical assistance.
  I have been asked on numerous times if CRP, WRP, continuous CRP and 
CREP sign-ups would still occur if this amendment was passed. It would 
be up to the USDA to find other funds from which to provide this 
technical assistance.
  Mr. Chairman, quite simply put, I think it is a fairness issue. The 
programs should pay for themselves from their own expenditures.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman raises a very important 
issue in his amendment, and just for the record, we would be delighted 
to support the amendment.
  Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. The gentleman much appreciates the Chair's 
offer.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he might consume that remains 
to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden), the ranking member of 
the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development and 
Research.
  Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief, and I thank the chairman 
for accepting the amendment, and I thank him and the ranking member for 
their significant work in bringing this bill to the floor.
  As the chairman of the authorizing subcommittee has mentioned, we do 
have a tremendous problem with technical assistance, and when we passed 
the farm bill in 2002 it was never our intent, as we talked about that 
record-setting investment in conservation, to have the funds come from 
one program to be transferred to another. So I want to thank the 
chairman for accepting the amendment and thank my chairman for offering 
the amendment.
  Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member rise in opposition to the pending 
amendment?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Baca

  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

[[Page H5584]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Baca:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by increasing the amount made available under the 
     heading ``Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil 
     Rights'', by increasing the amount made available under the 
     heading ``Cooperative State Research, Education, and 
     Extension Service--Research and Education Activities'', by 
     increasing the amount made available under the heading 
     ``Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 
     Service--Extension Activities'', by increasing the amount 
     made available under the heading ``Cooperative State 
     Research, Education, and Extension Service--Outreach for 
     Socially Disadvantaged Farmers'', and by decreasing the 
     amount made available under the heading ``RURAL DEVELOPMENT--
     salaries and expenses'' by $250,000, $1,500,000, $1,000,000, 
     $750,000, and $5,800,000, respectively.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Baca) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Bonilla) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume, 
which is the 5 minutes.
  I believe, Mr. Chairman, the third time is the charm. This is the 
third time I have brought this up. I rise in favor of an amendment by 
the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and myself to increase funding for minority 
programs at the USDA.
  We propose four funding increases: $250,000 for the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights; $1 million for tribal expansion 
grants; $750,000 for grants to socially disadvantaged farmers and 
ranchers; $1.5 million for Hispanic-serving institutions. We believe 
this is a small amount that equates to about $5.8 million. We are 
asking only for $5.8 million out of the $170 million that are currently 
in the account right now under Rural Development in salaries and 
expenses because we just transferred an additional $27 million this 
morning, and they were appropriated now $147 million, and all we are 
asking for is this small amount.
  We believe that this amendment is important because it provides 
funding for civil rights programs and other significant funding to help 
minorities in the field of agriculture and, I state, for civil rights 
programs.
  The U.S. Department of Agriculture institution has problems that must 
be resolved. The problems with the USDA are so severe that civil rights 
complaints have cost the Federal Government nearly $1 million in 
settlements and awards. Fixing the civil rights process and properly 
funding minority initiatives are necessary to permanently end a history 
of discrimination. We must rebuild trust between minority communities 
and the USDA.
  This amendment is supported by the National Council of American 
Indians, which represents about 250 tribal governments; the National 
Hispanic Legislative Agenda; the Hispanic Association of Colleges and 
Universities; and Rural Coalition, which has approximately 350 colleges 
and universities.
  We believe this amendment is important in dealing with discrimination 
and civil rights. Without funding, it becomes very difficult for some 
farmer or others to obtain loans who may have been discriminated, and 
we know very well that in order to harvest your crops you have got to 
have the finances, and if you file a complaint and you do not receive 
the finances, there must be some kind of recourse for an individual to 
file a complaint. The civil rights is one of the areas that individuals 
who may have been discriminated, whether they are African American, 
whether they are Hispanic or whether they are Indians or others, they 
have an opportunity to seek assistance through civil rights.
  We believe that we should protect civil rights. Civil rights was 
first introduced by Martin Luther King, who fought to make sure that 
justice and equality was there for all individuals.
  All we are saying now is, in order to enhance and provide the 
services, we must provide the funding to have the individuals who can 
provide the assistance. These grants do that through the following 
areas.
  I ask for support of this amendment, and hopefully my colleague from 
Texas will look at this as a worthy endeavor in providing assistance 
for civil rights.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is difficult to support. The gentleman raises some good issues 
in his debate and his amendment, but, again, this is a rural 
development cut that he is proposing which, as we heard earlier on the 
floor, there is strong support for all of these programs out in the 
heartland. So I reluctantly would oppose this effort, oppose this 
amendment because of where the money would come from.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the fine gentleman from California 
(Mr. Baca) for offering this amendment, along with his distinguished 
colleagues, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) and the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee). I would like to compliment the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Baca) for his steadfastness in standing 
up for inclusion of all farmers in our country, regardless of racial 
background, of ethnic background, of regional background. I really want 
to help the gentleman.
  I support his amendment. As we move to conference I hope that his 
dogged efforts today and those of his colleagues will help us find a 
better way forward. I hope that the chairman will work with us as we go 
into conference committee because what the gentleman is asking for here 
is not outlandish. He is asking for small increases in the office for 
civil rights, for tribal extension grants, for outreach to minority 
farmers and for Hispanic-serving institutions, all of which, along with 
Native Americans, deserve more attention in this bill.
  It is true that there are tremendous suits against the Department of 
Agriculture now totaling over $1 billion. The gentleman's amendment is 
just infinitesimal in comparison to that. But we know the unmet need 
that is out there.
  I just want to thank the gentleman. He has my support. He has my 
support not just here on the floor today but as we move to conference. 
I thank him for standing up for every farmer in America, regardless of 
where they might live, what their income or their background is. I 
commend the gentleman.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
thank the gentlewoman very much for her comments.
  It is true we are only asking for $5.8 million, which is a small 
amount of the $170 million that are there in appropriations.
  Hispanic-serving institutions are a great resource of innovation and 
deserve funding to continue generating advancements in agriculture and 
science. We must stop the long-standing practice of underfunding these 
institutions.
  Currently, the Hispanic-serving institutions are underfunded by about 
75 percent. We have a population that continues to grow, and that is 
important. We have 16 percent of the total population of the United 
States.
  I urge an ``aye'' vote, and I encourage my colleague from Texas to 
reconsider and support this worthy cause.
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Baca-
Thompson-Kildee amendment. I would like to commend and congratulate my 
colleagues for bringing this important amendment before this body.
  This amendment strengthens our federal commitment to redressing 
discrimination and assisting our socially disadvantaged farmers and 
ranchers.
  This amendment also increases funding for Hispanic-Serving 
Institutions, which play a critical role in building the capacity of 
our community in research and agricultural fields. This competitive 
USDA/HSI grant program is designed to promote and strengthen the 
ability of HSIs to carry out education programs that attract, retain, 
and graduate outstanding students capable of enhancing the nation's 
food and agricultural scientific and professional work force.
  Funded grants have supported projects in the fields of nutrition and 
dietetics, aquaculture, agribusiness technology, food and beverage 
export and international trade, food

[[Page H5585]]

and agricultural marketing and management, integrated resources 
management, food science technology engineering, plant science 
environmental science and veterinary science and technology.
  Although Title VIII of the Farm Bill authorizes $20 million for HSIs, 
actual appropriations remain at 20 percent of the minimally authorized 
level. Only 2.7 percent of Hispanic college graduates earn a degree in 
agriculture-related areas. The continued under-representation of 
Hispanics in these important areas demands a greater investment in such 
programs to expand funding to additional HSIs to better meet USDA 
goals. This amendment would increase funding for HSIs to $7.1 million. 
It is a smart investment and a step in the right direction.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California has expired.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BACA. 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 California will be 
postponed.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Tancredo

  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Amendment offered by Mr. Tancredo:

       Page 79, after line 16, insert the following (and make such 
     technical and conforming changes as may be appropriate):
       Sec. 759. None of the funds made available under the 
     heading ``FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE--Food Stamp Program'' in 
     title IV may be expended in contravention of section 213a of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1183a).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This is another amendment that intends to encourage a Federal agency, 
in this case the USDA, to comply with an existing law.
  I find myself up here oftentimes with amendments of this nature 
because there are a number of issues that we have on the books, there 
are a number of laws we have on the books, but we have, unfortunately, 
a problem with compliance. This is one of those kinds of situations.
  The amendment essentially says that none of the funds provided in the 
bill under the heading Food Stamp Program will be expended in 
contravention of 8 U.S.C. 1183(a).
  Now 8 U.S.C. 1183(a) does a couple of things. First of all, it says 
that an affidavit of support must be filed by a sponsor on behalf of 
certain aliens. The affidavit of support is a legally binding guarantee 
on the part of the sponsor that the immigrant they are sponsoring will 
not become a ``public charge,'' that is, dependent on welfare programs 
for 10 years or up to a point in time that they become a citizen, 
whichever happens first.
  This public charge requirement is nothing new. The requirement has 
been the cornerstone of immigration policy since the 1880s. Even 
inspectors at Ellis Island during the heyday of legal immigration when 
the vast majority of those seeking entry were allowed to stay did not 
admit immigrants liable to become a public charge.
  Second, the law makes the affidavit enforceable against the sponsor 
by ``the Federal Government, any State (or any political subdivision of 
such State), or by any other entity that provides any means-tested 
public benefit.'' Meaning the sponsors, and not the taxpayer, are to be 
the people on the hook for this cost.
  It also requires providers of these benefits to seek reimbursement 
from the sponsors and even allows the government to sue these deadbeat 
sponsors to recover these costs.
  Interestingly, another law, 8 U.S.C. 1227, makes it clear that aliens 
who become a public charge within 5 years of their entry are, in some 
cases, deportable.
  Reasonable people can disagree about issues revolving around 
immigration, but I think everyone should agree we should not be in the 
business of admitting people into the country for the purpose of 
allowing them to become a drain on the public Treasury.
  The fact is that we have a law on the books. It is not being upheld. 
It is not being enforced. In fact, we actually wrote a letter to the 
Justice Department last year asking about this, and they said, to the 
best of their knowledge, there had not been a case enforced in over 10 
years of anyone, anyone here. No one has actually gone to the extent of 
going to the affidavit that I have right here in front of me that says 
I will sponsor this person who is in the country; I will take 
responsibility for their costs should they become a public charge. Many 
do, in fact, become a public charge. It was happened in my State. It is 
happening in every State in the Nation. We should, in fact, encourage 
the enforcement of the law.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment?
  Mr. BONILLA. Yes, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to 
ask the author of the amendment a question.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is unaware of any pending request the 
gentlewoman is objecting to.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I am trying to understand the procedure here. The 
gentleman is formally offering an amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Member will suspend. The time is controlled by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and by the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Bonilla) in opposition.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time is controlled and amendments are not in order.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for a brief question.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for the 
time.
  I just would like to know, for the record, does the gentleman's 
amendment in any way change existing law regarding immigration and food 
stamp eligibility?
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. TANCREDO. It does not.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. KAPTUR. 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 Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) 
will be postponed.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONILLA. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I originally had drafted an amendment which 
would have de-funded a position at the Food and Drug Administration 
Center for Veterinary Medicine, which funded a bureaucrat for which we 
have been embattled in trying to protect one of my constituents, a 
small business located in my district.
  I will not be offering that amendment and instead will be engaging in 
a colloquy with the chairman of the subcommittee, and so I appreciate 
his yielding to me.
  Let me provide the chairman some background, since I know this issue 
is

[[Page H5586]]

fairly new to him, and I want to state the facts for the record here. 
In my district, I am proud to represent a third generation small 
family-owned business that manufactures veterinary pharmaceuticals. 
These are pharmaceutical, drugs, for cows, chickens, and pigs. They 
found a niche market where there was a monopoly player. They went out 
to engage in competition with this particular pharmaceutical 
manufacturer in a certain type of antibiotic for pigs and chickens.
  They also found there was a firm in the Kansas City area that held a 
license for this particular drug. And by the way, this particular 
antibiotic drug has been approved by the Center for Veterinary Medicine 
for over 40 years and, as I stated earlier, was already being 
distributed by a soon-to-be competitor.
  Now, this company in Omaha, Nebraska, wrote to the Center for 
Veterinary Medicine inquiring about the status of that drug and that 
license and received approval from the FDA to purchase that license and 
engage in the manufacture and selling of that approved drug. At the 
appropriate time, Mr. Chairman, I will submit a copy of that letter for 
the Record, but I will paraphrase here.
  Director of the CVM says in this letter regarding that license and 
that drug, ``You may rely on this letter to verify the approved status 
of the product.''
  That was in about 2002, when they engaged in the manufacture, sale 
and distribution of this antibiotic. In August of 2003, the FDA, with 
absolutely no warning, in the rules and regs published the suspension 
of that license, stating that there was ``confusion about the 
license,'' which was certainly news to my constituents.
  Now, when they asked about the confusion, there was no answer, no 
clarity provided by the Center for Veterinary Medicine, which left them 
with one procedural option, which was a hearing. They have still not 
received that hearing.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, it came to a boiling point this last 
week when they at last sat down with my constituent. Mr. Sundlof and 
Mr. Beaulieu, his counsel, sat down, and I will tell you, as reported 
to me from my constituent and his counsel, it was probably one of the 
ugliest meetings I have ever heard of from a constituent meeting with a 
Federal agency and bureaucrats. And, really, it was unacceptable 
behavior. I will not even mention the phrases and wording that they 
used because it would violate the House rules.
  I felt that probably the best way of dealing with that, since we 
cannot do anything with bureaucrats that act this way, other than de-
fund their positions, was to ask the chairman for some help and some 
guidance on how to deal with this particular situation; A, the 
treatment that my constituent received at this meeting, and 
particularly the problem that he is faced with right now, in having a 
letter saying you are approved and then a mysterious reversal of that.
  So if the chairman has some words of wisdom and guidance for me, I 
would appreciate it.
                                              Department of Health


                                             & Human Services,

                                 Rockville, MD, December 17, 1998.
     Dr. Donald A. Gable,
     Manager, Pharmaceutical Regulatory Affairs, Boehringer 
         Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc., Elwood, KS.
       Dear Dr. Gable: This letter will confirm receipt of your 
     certification letter dated November 17, 1998, as an amendment 
     to your letter dated September 18, 1998, sent to CVM in 
     response to my letter of July 29, 1998. The letter related to 
     NOPTRACIN' MD-50, (bacitracin methylene 
     disalicylate) Type A medicated articles which is the subject 
     of the NADA 141-137.
       In accordance with my letter, your certification will be 
     used along with information in our files as the 
     administrative record of an approval for NADA 141-137, which 
     provides for a Type A Medicated Article, 
     Noptracin' MD-50 (bacitracin methylene 
     disalicylate) for use for the indications and under the 
     conditions of use specified in the labeling attached to your 
     letter.
       The agency will begin the work of codifying the approval 
     via publication in the Federal Register. This task most 
     likely will be accomplished as part of an action affecting a 
     number of products currently listed in 21 CFR 558.15. We will 
     make every effort to bring this process to a conclusion as 
     rapidly as possible given resource constraints and public 
     health priorities. In the meantime, you may rely on this 
     letter to verify the approved status of NADA 141-137.
       If you have any questions concerning the agency's position 
     regarding this NADA and the subject products, please do not 
     hesitate to call me.
           Sincerely yours,
                                 Stephen F. Sundlof, D.V.M., Ph.D.
     Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
                                  ____

                                              Department of Health


                                             & Human Services,

                                   Rockville, MD, August 28, 1998.
     W. L. Winstrom,
     Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, PennField Oil Co., 
         Omaha, NE.
       Dear Mr. Winstrom: This letter will confirm receipt of two 
     certification letters sent to CVM in response to my letter of 
     July 29, 1998 to Mr. Greg Bergt of your company. One of the 
     letters related to the combination of oxytetracycline and 
     neomycin (subject to NADA 138-939), and the other related to 
     the combination of chlortetracycline, sulamethazine and 
     penicillin (subject to NADA 138-934).
       In accordance with my letter, your certification will be 
     used along with information in our files as the 
     administrative record of an approval for the following: (1) 
     NADA 138-939 which provides for two Type A Medicated 
     Articles, Neo-Oxy 50/50 containing 50 grams of 
     oxytetracycline HCl and 50 grams of neomycin sulfate per 
     pound and Neo-Oxy 100/50 containing 50 grams of 
     oxytetracycline HCl and 100 grams of neomycin sulfate per 
     pound for use for the indications and under the conditions of 
     use specified in the labeling attached to your letter, and 
     (2) NADA 138-934 which provides for a Type A Medicated 
     Article, Pennchlor SP 500 containing 40 grams 
     chlortetracycline (as the calcium complex), 40 grams 
     sulfamethazine and 20 grams penicillin (as procaine 
     penicillin) per pound for use for the indications and under 
     the conditions of use specified in the labeling attached to 
     your letter.
       The agency will begin the work of codifying the approvals 
     via publications in the Federal Register. This task most 
     likely will be accomplished as part of an action affecting a 
     number of products currently listed in 21 CFR 558.15. We will 
     make every effort to bring this process to a conclusion as 
     rapidly as possible given resource constraints and public 
     health priorities. In the meantime, you may rely on this 
     letter to verify the approved status of NADAs 138-939 and 
     138-934.
       If you have any questions concerning the agency's position 
     regarding these NADAs and the subject products, please do not 
     hesitate to call me.
           Sincerely yours,

                            Stephen F. Sundlof, D.V.M., Ph.D.,

                                   Director, Center for Veterinary
                                                         Medicine.

  Mr. BONILLA. Well, Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman 
raises a very, very good issue here that needs attention. This is an 
issue, however, that up until the last 24 hours was not an issue that 
we were aware of, although I know the gentleman has been working on it 
for some time now.
  What we would like to do is look into this issue and see what is 
going on over at the FDA. And I certainly agree that government at all 
levels must be held accountable for decisions made by its public 
servants. This may be a case in which accountability is lacking, which 
is something we should all be concerned about.
  So I pledge to the gentleman that we will try to figure out exactly 
what is going on here so that he gets an appropriate answer.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe we are now out of time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BONILLA. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 more minute on 
this issue.
  THE CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas may strike the last word, if 
he wants to, an additional time between amendments.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word in the 
event the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) has any additional 
information on this.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONILLA. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this 
additional time and the effort he and perhaps the appropriators may 
extend to see if we can change the dynamic here.
  And I might note, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Latham) is also apprised of this situation.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONILLA. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa for a brief comment 
on this matter.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I became aware of this over the past year; 
and it is a very, very important issue that the gentleman from Nebraska 
is trying to deal with. When we have bureaucrats that are not 
responsive to

[[Page H5587]]

constituents, and without any valid reason, certainly it is something 
we should all be very concerned about and would support his efforts in 
any way possible.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
from Iowa and the gentleman from Nebraska.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Chabot

  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Chabot:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to carry out section 203 of 
     the Agriculture Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5623) or to pay 
     the salaries and expenses of personnel who carry out a market 
     program under such section.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and a Member opposed each will control 
10 minutes.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) is recognized.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, each year, through the Market Access Program, known as 
MAP, Congress gives tens of millions of dollars away to industry groups 
to advertise their products in other countries. It is called the Market 
Access Program because it sounds better than the corporate welfare 
program. But, Mr. Chairman, it is, in actuality, one in the same.
  This year, the Department of Agriculture is doling out $125 million 
of the American taxpayers' money to various groups to advertise their 
wares overseas. Well over $1 billion has been given away in the name of 
market access or market promotion over the years; this amid record 
budget deficits and a still-recovering economy.
  So who is getting money from MAP, and how much are they getting? The 
U.S. Meat Export Federation is getting $10.6 million just this year. 
Pistachio, prune, papaya, pear, pet food, and popcorn groups are all 
getting handouts, $5.9 million. As is the Ginseng Board of Wisconsin, a 
little over $5,000. And the National Watermelon Promotion Board, 
$133,952.
  Now, these groups should advertise. I think it is good they are 
advertising their products overseas. And if they sell them, that helps 
in this country. But it ought to be done with their money and not with 
the taxpayers' money.
  Supporters, of course, will claim this so-called business and 
government partnership creates jobs. However, studies by the GAO 
indicate that this program has no discernible effect on U.S. 
agricultural exports. Further, it gives money to companies that would 
undertake this advertising without this unwarranted government subsidy.
  Let me give one example of the kind of outrage that this program 
generates. While I have used this illustration before in past years 
when we have tried to get rid of this program, unsuccessfully I might 
add, unfortunately, I would like to use it again. I think it really 
does bear repeating.
  Many people probably remember the popular ``Heard It Through the 
Grapevine'' raisin commercial, sponsored by the California Raisin 
Board. Well, based on the success of the commercial, MAP decided it 
would be a good idea to use that commercial to attempt to boost raisin 
sales in Japan and put $3 million into this project. Unfortunately, 
however, the ads, first of all, were in English, leaving many Japanese 
unaware that the dancing characters were raisins. Most thought they 
were potatoes or chocolate. In addition, many Japanese children were 
afraid of these wrinkled misshapen figures. They were actually 
frightened by these things on TV.
  If this were not such a colossal waste of taxpayer hard-earned money, 
it would be funny. However this is the kind of wasteful spending that 
inevitably occurs when we give someone the ability to spend someone 
else's money. That is what this program does. Again, I am all for these 
groups advertising their products and selling them overseas; but they 
should do it with their money, not with taxpayer money.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a simple, straightforward amendment. It would 
simply stop the Department of Agriculture from funding the MAP program. 
It would save the taxpayers' millions of dollars, as much as $200 
million annually by 2006.
  Back in 1996, we reformed welfare for the poor. I think it is about 
time that we reformed or, in this case, got rid of welfare for the 
wealthy. I urge my fellow Members of Congress to join me and also the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) and many others, including the 
National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, Taxpayers 
for Common Sense, and U.S. PIRG, in casting a vote for the overburdened 
American taxpayer. I strongly urge support of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I recall in the previous administration they cutely 
coined the phrase ``corporate welfare'' any time there was any attempt 
by this institution or others in this country to fall on the side of 
free enterprise and the private sector. So I think this is one of those 
occasions where that phrase is being exploited to a great degree.
  I want to point out that there are many positive aspects of the 
Market Access Program. The fiscal year 2005 funding level on this 
program authorized by the farm bill will be $140 million from the 
Commodity Credit Corporation to help initiate and expand sales of U.S. 
ag products: fish and forest products overseas.
  Rural American farmers and ranchers are the primary suppliers of 
commodities that benefit from MAP. All regions of the country benefit 
from the program's employment and economic effects from expanded 
agricultural export markets. So there is probably not a State in this 
Nation that does not see a direct benefit from this. Ag exports are 
expected to reach a record $61.5 billion this year. There are well over 
1 million jobs related to ag exports. This program goes a long way 
towards making sure American ag products have export markets.
  Mr. Chairman, for those that argue there is corporate welfare, to use 
that cute phrase again, it is accurate that agricultural co-ops and 
small companies can receive assistance under the branded program. To 
conduct branded promotion activities, individual companies must provide 
at least 50 percent funding.

                              {time}  1545

  So it is not simply a complete giveaway, as might be indicated here. 
For generic promotion activities, trade associations and others must 
meet a minimum 10 percent match requirement. Participants are required 
to certify that Federal funds used under the program supplement, not 
replace, private sector funds. Many regulations limit the promotion of 
branded products in a single country to no more than 5 years.
  Those are the facts. This is a program that has been around for some 
time, and we feel it has worked very well for the American people.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the distinguished chairman of the authorizing 
committee.
  (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment. We are engaged in negotiations with the Europeans and others 
around the world on trade and to pass this amendment and to effectively 
unilaterally disarm when we are already outspent by a 10-to-1 factor 
would be a serious, serious mistake.
  The United States spends about $200 million promoting our 
agricultural exports. This does a great deal of good because we are by 
far the world's leader in agricultural exports. This year, the 
Department projects we will export $61.5 billion in agricultural 
products. This is a tiny, tiny fraction of that. At the same time, the 
European Union, which exports a far smaller amount of

[[Page H5588]]

their agricultural production, will spend $2 billion on agricultural 
exports.
  For us to abandon the field with this relatively modest program that 
helps cooperatives and other groups that do not have a name brand label 
product necessarily but often have a commodity that they are trying to 
market and sell in other countries, to take that opportunity to have a 
successful public-private partnership, and that is what this is, 
because the agricultural groups contribute 50 percent of the cost of 
these programs, would in my opinion be a serious, serious mistake and 
cost many American jobs if we were to eliminate this program.
  This is an important, cooperative way to promote American agriculture 
overseas. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment which I think 
is very misguided and would be very counterproductive to our trade 
negotiations with other nations around the world who have far, far 
higher agricultural subsidies than the United States does.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I just would like to respond with one thing. We had a letter here 
which I thought was by the National Taxpayers Union which said a lot of 
interesting things, but one thing I would like to read from it says:
  ``The more U.S. taxpayers are forced to support unnecessary and 
economically dubious programs such as the MAP, the less credibility our 
Nation has on adhering to free trade principles.''
  I think even though the Europeans do it does not necessarily mean 
that that is right. Oftentimes, that means it is not the policy to 
follow. I think the United States should set an example. I think this 
program should be defunded.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the ranking member of the authorizing committee.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and 
associate myself with both chairmen's comments.
  Right now, we are in some serious negotiations on the current Doha 
round of the WTO agreement. As the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goodlatte) made the comment a moment ago, I want to repeat it. It makes 
no sense for us to unilaterally disarm ourselves when we are in the 
process of negotiating the next round of trade agreements.
  Also, I have to chuckle sometimes when I hear other groups who 
suddenly become experts on everything that is done or not done in 
agriculture. Right now, we are in an international marketplace in which 
we have to compete with other governments. I first became aware of this 
over 20 years ago when it affected the poultry industry and when we 
found turnkey jobs being offered to anyone that would buy their 
chickens. We had folks that were willing to pay for turnkey jobs for 
everything from the feeding, to the growing, to the processing, to the 
selling, to the promoting. We had this same argument year after year in 
which for some reason we have been refusing to stand shoulder to 
shoulder with our businesses in that international marketplace.
  If we could isolate it, then the gentleman is correct with his 
amendment. But when one looks at it from the standpoint of the 
negotiations that we are now going through, it makes no sense 
whatsoever for this body to unilaterally disarm those producers of 
commodities that are trying to compete in an international marketplace 
and the only help they get is this small amount which is given through 
the MAP program.
  I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Let us give our 
negotiators a chance, and if by chance we can negotiate away all 
Federal help by all governments everywhere in the world to do this, 
then I will be the first one standing here on this floor saying, let's 
do it. But today let us not do it.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for 
yielding me this time.
  I have a great deal of respect for my friend from Ohio that is 
offering this amendment, but on this one I think he is wrong. I want to 
associate myself with the ranking member and the chairman of the 
Committee on Agriculture but specifically with the ranking member when 
he made the observation that we are in a global economy. I think that 
is the issue that we ought to be focusing on when we talk about 
agriculture in general.
  There has been a great deal of talk in the past as we enter into 
these trade agreements with the President with the trade promotion 
authority of putting the ag sector at a much higher level than it has 
been with the past trade deals. That is what we have to keep in mind, 
because I believe agriculture as a whole in the past has gotten the 
short shrift on these past trade agreements.
  There has been criticism of this program in the past where it has 
gone to big corporations. That was changed back in 1998, and now the 
principal beneficiary of this MAP program are specialty crops. 
Specialty crops by definition do not have the great deal of support 
behind them to market their products. My district is full of specialty 
crops. To some, it may be big industry, but they are specialty crops, 
like apples. The apple industry uses this immensely. The potato 
industry in the Northwest, Idaho, Oregon and Washington, use this to 
market their raw products and their processed products. The hop 
industry, which is very small in my district but large nationwide, uses 
this overseas, as does the cherry industry. They are all the 
beneficiaries of this program.
  I think as we go forward with these trade initiatives that the 
President is talking about in other areas this is a tool that the ag 
sector can use, and now is the time I think to continue funding. As a 
matter of fact, the farm bill authorizes more than what we are 
appropriating in this bill. We recognize the tight budget conditions, 
but I think this program is important. I urge my colleagues to reject 
the Chabot amendment and support the MAP program.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just conclude by making a couple of points. 
Although supporters of the program some years ago changed the name, it 
was MPP, the Market Promotion Program, to MAP, the Market Access 
Program, and made some other cosmetic adjustments due to pressure from 
taxpayer watchdog groups, the basic concept and the cost to the 
taxpayers remain basically the same. The government is dipping into the 
pockets of hard-working individuals and promoting private corporate 
entities. Well over $1 billion has been spent on this program over the 
last number of years, and studies by the GAO indicate that the MAP 
program has no discernible effect on U.S. agricultural exports. 
Further, it basically gives money to companies that would undertake 
this advertising without the government doing it.
  I want to again emphasize I think it is good that these companies 
advertise and that they sell overseas, but rather than doing it with 
taxpayer dollars they ought to do it with their own dollars.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) will 
be postponed.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I 
yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley).
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a 
colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and 
Related Agencies.
  In the 2002 farm bill, an exemption from payment of promotion 
assessments was created for producers of 100

[[Page H5589]]

percent organic products. This exemption was established in light of 
the fact that commodity promotion programs do not focus on or promote 
organic products, which constitute only a small minority of 
agricultural production. Organic producers were paying assessments for 
promotion programs that did not benefit their specialized operations.
  Section 10607 of the Farm Security and Rural Development Act of 2002 
thus mandated a narrow exemption for producers of 100 percent organic 
products. The Secretary was specifically required to issue regulations 
for this exemption not later than 1 year after the date of enactment. 
Yet more than 2 years after enactment it still has not been 
implemented. The farm bill was enacted in May, 2002. The regulations 
should have been promulgated by May of last year, but they were not.
  The Department of Agriculture finally issued proposed regulations 
earlier this year and collected public comments, but final regulations 
have yet to be issued. When asked for a timetable for their completion, 
Department officials refuse to identify one.
  Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to offer an amendment to impose a 
spending limitation on the appropriations for the Agricultural 
Marketing Service until such time as final regulations for this 
exemption are issued and implemented. But, frankly, organic producers 
should not have to wait until fiscal year 2005 for relief.
  I would ask the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for his 
thoughts on getting this problem resolved.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for 
raising this issue today and pledge to work with him to arrive at a 
satisfactory resolution.
  I agree that implementation of this regulation is long overdue and 
should be concluded immediately. As the gentleman suggests, a spending 
limitation on the Department's fiscal year 2005 appropriation may well 
be an appropriate step if the implementing regulations are not 
finalized in the very near future. I would hope, however, that we could 
be successful in convincing the Department of the serious need to 
conclude this matter on an expedited basis. Further delay is simply 
unacceptable.
  Let me assure the gentleman that we will work with him to bring this 
issue to closure as quickly as possible. If we need to consider 
additional action as the appropriations process moves forward, we will 
do so.
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. I thank the gentleman for his 
consideration.
  Mr. BONILLA. I thank the gentleman from California.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanders

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Sanders:
       Page 2, line 9, after the 1st dollar amount insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 34, line 23, after the 1st dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and a Member opposed each will 
control 7 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BONILLA. I would like to state that we have seen the gentleman's 
amendment, and if he would like to just move the question, we would be 
happy to accept it if the gentleman sees fit.
  Mr. SANDERS. I thank the chairman very much.
  If I may just very briefly tell the Members what the amendment is. I 
very much appreciate the chairman's support for this amendment. I know 
the ranking member is also supportive.
  Mr. Chairman, all over rural America, we are seeing the decline of 
family-based agriculture. And while we want to look at the broader 
picture as to how we can help family farmers in dairy or in any other 
commodity, I think one way that we can move forward, and I am glad that 
the majority agrees, is to start emphasizing agritourism. All over this 
country, in Vermont and in rural America, billions of dollars are being 
spent by tourists who go to rural areas. Yet, unfortunately, family 
farmers who in most cases are the folks who are keeping the land open 
and keeping the land beautiful are not receiving the kinds of funds 
from the tourists that they should and that they deserve.
  To my mind, as we see the decline of family-based agriculture, what 
we are seeing in Vermont and all over this country is that agritourism 
is putting hard cash into the pockets of family farmers.
  Mr. Chairman, from the experience of my own State, I can tell the 
Members that there is a lot of support for agritourism nationwide, and 
I know that there is in this body in a bipartisan way. My own State of 
Vermont has been working on this concept for many years now, in part 
with funding provided by the USDA some years ago.
  Some of the successes of Vermont's agritourism model include on-farm 
technical assistance in using the Internet and helping farmers get 
business through the Internet, setting up cooperative marketing with 
various commodity groups, the Chamber of Commerce and the Vermont 
Departments of Tourism and Agriculture. In addition, a regional 
marketing Web site was established that received over 40,000 hits in 
any average month. Vermont's agritourism initiative was highlighted by 
the travel book company Frommer's. In addition, the six New England 
States held an agritourism summit to coordinate their efforts in this 
area.

                              {time}  1600

  So, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the committee and 
the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for their support of the concept 
of agritourism, and I very much appreciate that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, we will be happy to support this 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
       Add at the end (before the short title) the following:
       Sec. 7__. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to pay the salaries and expenses of employees of the 
     Department of Agriculture who make payments from any 
     appropriated funds to tobacco quota holders or producers of 
     quota tobacco pursuant to any law enacted after July 1, 2004, 
     terminating tobacco marketing quotas under part I of subtitle 
     B of title III of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 and 
     related price support under sections 106, 106A, and 106B of 
     the Agricultural Act of 1949.

  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will 
control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The Flake-Van Hollen-Platts-Waxman-Bartlett-Doggett amendment 
prohibits the expenditure of funds for salaries to implement a 
taxpayer-funded tobacco bailout in this program. This amendment would 
still permit the Department of Agriculture to implement a program using 
industry as opposed to taxpayer funds.
  The tobacco buyout is simply a bad deal for taxpayers. There is never 
a good time to spend $10 billion bailing out tobacco farmers; but in 
the midst of a war, a deficit, and an economic recovery, now is the 
worst time.
  Unfortunately, Members of this body were not given the opportunity to 
debate this provision during the recent consideration of H.R. 4520, the 
corporate tax bill. An amendment I offered with the gentleman from 
Texas

[[Page H5590]]

(Mr. Doggett) would have stripped the bailout provision from the bill. 
However, this amendment was not accepted by the Committee on Rules. As 
a result, I and a number of my colleagues have no option other than 
opposing final passage of that legislation. There were a lot of 
provisions that I liked in that bill. The tax cuts were particularly 
good, but I voted against it because of this egregious provision, the 
tobacco bailout.
  Today, the House finally has the opportunity to debate the merits of 
the $9.6 billion bailout for the tobacco industry.
  The Federal tobacco quota system was established as a temporary 
program during the Depression era and has gone relatively unchanged 
since then. It was created to control the supply and, in turn, market 
prices for U.S.-grown tobacco. The quota system has long outlived any 
usefulness it might have had. Tobacco production in the U.S. has been 
declining steadily because, among other things, lower-price foreign 
tobacco is reducing demand for artificially high-priced U.S. product.
  Interestingly, current law requires that tobacco growers choose by 
referendum every 3 years whether or not to continue Federal support of 
the industry. While the quota system is resulting in the decline of the 
industry, growers have chosen to carry on with the program. Now we are 
offering to buy the growers out of the program that they have chosen to 
be with for the last 3 years, that they have chosen to continue at a 
cost of $9.6 billion in taxpayer money. Much of the buyout payments 
would land in the accounts of the big tobacco companies.
  I am also concerned that this proposed buyout would set a bad 
precedent and that future efforts to end agricultural quota or subsidy 
programs will come at too high a price for taxpayers. This $9.6 billion 
buyout is being touted as a free market solution to the problems 
resulting from Federal support. Conservative estimates put the value of 
the Federal buyout at two to three times the market value of the 
quotas. This is no free market program. The Federal purchase of 
federally created quotas at two or three times the market price is 
simply not a free market solution.
  For the sake of the taxpayers that we represent, I urge passage of 
the Flake-Van Hollen-Platts-Waxman-Bartlett-Doggett amendment. I want 
to say thanks in particular to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van 
Hollen) for working so hard on this amendment with others.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and 
I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I am pleased to join with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Platts), the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), and the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) in offering what really is a 
very simple amendment that says none of the funds appropriated in this 
agriculture bill may be used to implement the $10 billion taxpayer-
funded bailout of the tobacco industry.
  Less than a month ago, as we know, in this House, we passed a bill 
that was filled with various special interest tax provisions, and 
included in that bill was the $10 billion bailout paid for entirely by 
taxpayers. Some call it a buyout. I call it a sellout of the American 
taxpayer. And this House never had an opportunity at that time to vote 
on that issue, and now we have that chance.
  Just think about what we are saying to the American people. At a time 
when we are running huge deficits in this country, at a time when 
Congress is telling schools around the country we cannot fully fund No 
Child Left Behind, at a time when we are not meeting the requirements 
of the Homeland Security Department agencies, at that very time we are 
asking taxpayers to foot the $10 billion bill for a tobacco bailout. 
Talk about misplaced priorities.
  And what are the consequences of a taxpayer-funded bailout to the big 
tobacco companies? They are going to get cheaper tobacco; and as a 
result, they will reap a big windfall. According to Agriculture 
Department economists, they will reap $15 billion in windfall profits 
over the next 14 years. In addition, economists will tell us, as a 
result of this bailout action, they will lower their prices and the 
result will be many more young people who get hooked on nicotine.
  And what do the big tobacco companies do to get this taxpayer 
benefit? Nothing. They do not have to do anything. They do not have to 
put in a nickel. They do not have to submit to any additional 
regulations.
  We now have before us an opportunity on a bipartisan basis to say we 
are not going to spend taxpayer dollars for a $10 billion bailout.
  I want to make a point that I think is important to many Members. 
This would allow a buyout to go forward not using taxpayer dollars. 
There is legislation, bipartisan legislation, that has been submitted 
before this House and before the Senate that calls for a buyout of some 
of these interests. However, in all those bills, the provision requires 
that it be funded not by the taxpayer but from other sources. That is 
all this amendment does. It says none of the funds in this bill can go 
for a taxpayer-funded bailout. It leaves open the option, the 
opportunity for other legislation to pass that would be similar to that 
that has already been introduced on a bipartisan basis.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on 
this amendment; and I would say, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment to 
me makes no sense to be even part of this debate because if we are 
talking about a buyout provision to end the Depression-era program that 
is in the FSC bill that has passed this House, this language will have 
no bearing on that because, in fact, there is no money coming from the 
Agriculture Department to fund the provisions that we called for in the 
FSC bill, Mr. Chairman. So that is why I am standing here in opposition 
to the amendment, because it has no place on this bill. It does not 
impact anything we did on the FSC bill to try to effect the tobacco 
buyout.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
  This amendment sends a clear signal that we will be economic 
conservatives, that we will protect the public treasury, that we will 
also respect the private buyouts and the private settlements that have 
already happened with a substantial amount of funds already going to 
the tobacco industry States and tobacco growers. This amendment stands 
for the principle that if we buy out, then they should cease producing 
tobacco, which under the tobacco buyout does not happen. And for all of 
us as good protectors of the public FSC, it is incumbent upon us to 
stop new government programs and to make sure we restrict government 
spending especially at this time when our government budget is in the 
red.
  We know there is an unfunded liability for Social Security. We know 
there is an unfunded liability for Medicare. It is very important for 
us then to restrict public spending so that we can honor the promises 
to the American people, especially for retirement security and health 
care, that we have already made.
  I applaud the gentleman for putting this together. I apologize to my 
subcommittee chairman, who I know personally is a rancher and does not 
have a personal stake in this issue; and I applaud the gentleman for 
offering the amendment. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield to a large number of Members who 
will ask for unanimous consent agreements; and I also note, Mr. 
Chairman, that in each case there will be an alternate from the 
majority and the minority to show strong bipartisan opposition to this 
amendment.
  I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
  (Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)

[[Page H5591]]

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the irony here is enormous.
  Today we are hearing from anti-tobacco advocates who: want to keep 
the federal government in the tobacco business; want farm families to 
stay hog-tied to the tobacco industry; are pushing for the continuation 
of the tobacco program, not the ending of the tobacco program.
  This Amendment seeks to prevent USDA from eliminating the federal 
tobacco program.
  Every day, the Gentleman from Arizona comes down here to the well of 
the Floor to complain about the size of the federal government; the 
number of federal programs; and the fact that government bureaucracy is 
handicapping U.S. enterprise.
  On these principles, I agree with him. However, I find it ironic that 
my colleague is now offering an amendment that will do the very thing 
he claims to vehemently oppose.
  The bipartisan House-passed tobacco provisions will: Permanently 
eliminate a depression-era federal program; Get the Government out of 
the tobacco growing business; Allow U.S. growers to compete on the free 
and open market; Stop market share loses to Zimbabwe, Brazil, and 
China.
  The tobacco provision will not: Bankrupt the federal government, as 
it is entirely offset through the extension of customs fees; 
Dramatically increase teen smoking.
  There's absolutely no correlation between smoking and the buyout.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and support family 
farms and ending the federal tobacco system.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Etheridge).
  (Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition on behalf of 
the farmers who for years have made a contribution, and now they are 
asking for an opportunity for a way out to save their way of life. And 
I am embarrassed that people that have no farmers and do not understand 
the program are the ones who are in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Flake amendment.
  As I understand the gentleman's intention, he wants to prohibit USDA 
from implementing a tobacco program buyout if it is funded from 
taxpayer dollars out of the general fund.
  When tobacco members first began working on tobacco buyout 
legislation, our intention was for the tobacco companies to finance it.
  In fact, I along with Congressmen Fletcher, McIntyre and Goode, 
introduced a buyout bill last year, H.R. 3160, which would have funded 
a more generous $15 billion buyout paid for through user fees on the 
tobacco companies.
  The vast majority of tobacco state members endorsed that proposition 
by cosponsoring the bill.
  Buyout legislation pending in the other body would also have the 
companies pay for it. It has the support of every single tobacco state 
Senator, Republican and Democrat alike.
  But financing the buyout from current tobacco excise taxes was the 
only way the Republican leadership would support a buyout.
  Despite promises to the contrary, the Republican leadership never let 
H.R. 3160 see the light of day.
  They did not believe tobacco companies should pay for a buyout, so 
they kept our bill bottled up.
  Let me be clear, the buyout provisions the House included in the 
corporate tax bill Congress passed last month are not perfect, but as I 
said then, beggars can't be choosers.
  Since 1997, tobacco quota has been cut by more than 50 percent. 
Consequently, farm families have seen their incomes cut by more than 
half.
  My tobacco farmers need a buyout in order to have an honest chance to 
survive.
  They don't care if it is paid through current excise taxes, new 
excise taxes, user fees, assessments, whatever.
  They don't even care if it has FDA. All they care that it gets done 
this year.
  The time for action is now. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Flake 
amendment, and let's move forward on an issue of great importance to 
North Carolina and other tobacco producing states.
  Vote ``no'' on the Flake amendment.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Jenkins).
  (Mr. JENKINS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. JENKINS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
McIntyre).
  (Mr. McINTYRE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment. This is not a bailout. It is a buyout. And if we do nothing, 
it will be a wipe-out for our farmers.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Flake Amendment.
  By combining the American Jobs Creation Act with the Fair and 
Equitable Tobacco Reform Act, which I had the privilege to coauthor 
with my friend from Tennessee, Bill Jenkins, we have created trade 
opportunities for American farmers and prevented our farm jobs from 
going overseas. The tobacco market reform legislation will create tens 
of thousands of new jobs in rural areas throughout the South and 
Midwest.
  This ill-advised amendment would jeopardize that monumental 
agreement.
  The current federal tobacco price support system is the last 
Depression-era farm program in America! It is time to get out of the 
1930s.
  The current federal tobacco policy was created during the Depression 
to manage the price and supply of tobacco. And, in the beginning, the 
price support program was effective. But, the world of tobacco 
production has dramatically changed. Our federal tobacco policy, 
unfortunately, has remained the same: too many farmers producing less 
and less tobacco in an overly-bureaucratic, government-controlled 
system, unable to respond to market pressures and opportunities.
  This is not a ``bailout'', it is a ``buyout'', and if we continue to 
do nothing, it will be a ``wipe-out''. What if your income was cut by 
50 percent like the farmers have suffered over the last 5 to 6 years? 
That's exactly what has happened! Why? Because the U.S. Secretary of 
Agriculture has the authority to set the quota each year. And, the 
farmers could be facing another 20 percent to 30 percent quota cut to 
their income later this year.

  Tobacco produces 6 to 7 times the cash that other crops do. You can't 
tell a farmer simply to grow something else. With the average tobacco 
farm size being 19 acres, a farmer does not have 6 to 7 times the 
acreage to grow other crops to make up the difference.
  Under current federal tobacco policy, American farmers lose, while 
farmers in countries like Brazil win. For example, when political 
instability in Zimbabwe opened up a 350 million pound opportunity for 
tobacco farmers, it was Brazil--not the United States--that took over 
hundreds of millions of pounds of tobacco production from Zimbabwe.
  The American Jobs Creation Act, coupled with tobacco reform, ends the 
Depression-era price support program, buy back the federal property 
interest from quota holders and allow farmers to make the decision to 
stay in tobacco production under the free enterprise system or get out. 
And, this gets the government out of the tobacco business!
  A vote for the Flake amendment is a vote against this important 
legislation that passed this body overwhelmingly on June 17, 2004, and 
is currently awaiting action by the Senate.
  The American farmer is not the only one who suffers from this 
outdated federal tobacco policy. Banks and mortgage Brokers; Grocery 
stores and Gas stations; Fertilizer distributors and Farm equipment 
dealers; Automobile dealerships and Academic institutions, and the 
ripple effect on local, regional, and state economies is devastating 
for all types of restaurants and retail businesses everywhere. All 
sectors of the southern economy depend on the cash flow from tobacco 
production. Tobacco farmers' problems don't stop at the farm. It is not 
only the farmers' issue, it affects the entire community!
  Our farmers and our rural, regional and state economies have suffered 
for too long under a government program that left them with an 
uncertain outlook to the future. It is time for the uncertainty to end!
  Don't turn your back on the families and rural communities across out 
Nation by voting for this amendment. This is the time to get the 
federal government out of the tobacco business and let the farmers have 
freedom of choice--not a government mandate that dictates how much a 
farmer can earn or lose. We wound not stand for that for any other 
vocation in our society. It is time for the discrimination against 
farmers to end.
  Give them a choice! Get the government off their backs and out of 
their pockets. Do what's right, and stop the uncertainty for everyone--
the farmer and his children, the government, and the American Taxpayer!
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Flake Amendment.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Coble).
  (Mr. COBLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H5592]]

  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, this is a devastating amendment. It is not a 
big buyout for big tobacco nor for tobacco farmers. I urge defeat of 
the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Flake/Van Hollen 
Amendment.
  A tobacco buyout is of vital importance to tobacco farmers in the 
Sixth District of North Carolina. These farmers are desperate to get 
out of a Depression-era system which makes the cost of growing tobacco 
in the United States greater than non U.S. production. When in my 
district, almost daily I see the disastrous effect this Depression era 
government program has on farmers.
  Opponents who argue a tobacco buyout is a bail-out for big tobacco 
are dead wrong. This is not big tobacco getting a tax-break, this is 
tobacco farmers receiving benefits that are due to them because of a 
government program created in the 1930's. Tobacco companies have grown 
to rely on foreign imports of tobacco to manufacture their legal 
product because the inflated price of U.S. tobacco which is directly 
attributable to the quota system. Eliminating the quota system levels 
the marketplace for U.S. tobacco farmers and enables them to compete in 
the world market.
  Second, the authors of this amendment mistakenly purport that a 
buyout is funded by general tax revenues. This is also inaccurate. The 
federal excise tax on tobacco accounts for approximately $7.5 billion 
dollars annually $37.5 billion over five years. These taxes are paid by 
consumers of these legal products, not by all taxpayers. My point is 
our government realizes excessive amounts of revenue compliments of a 
tax on the tobacco industry. We simply seek nine point six billion 
dollars over 5 years in return to save growers and communities that 
support tobacco production from economic devastation.
  Some may argue this is an unnecessary expenditure, and my friends, I 
tell you your commodity is next. This amendment sets a dangerous 
precedent for all agriculture commodities and could have an adverse 
impact on regional and national commodities seeking compensation in the 
future.
  A vote in support of this amendment would prevent the United States 
Government from exiting tobacco production. Sounds strange, I agree. 
Considering the tobacco debates on this floor in the past, I am 
surprised to see some of my colleagues supporting the continuation of a 
government controlled federal tobacco program. Let the free market work 
itself out and give my tobacco farmers a chance to succeed. I adamantly 
oppose this amendment and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Chandler).
  (Mr. CHANDLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CHANDLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, communities across my home state of Kentucky are 
dependent upon the income from the production and sale of tobacco. 
While the federal tobacco program has served our farmers well for 
generations, the changes brought about by direct contracting with 
manufacturers, litigation with the tobacco industry, and reductions in 
the tobacco quota have made a buyout option necessary. The reality of 
tobacco's decline, thousands of lost jobs and billions in lost economic 
activity in my state alone, extends well beyond the farm to affect 
virtually all of my constituents and their families.
  The buyout provision we sent to conference last month would give 
tobacco farmers a chance to compete with foreign sources of less 
reliable, lower-quality tobacco. Plus, its payment assistance would 
make it easier for those farmers who wish to transition to another crop 
or vocation, while adding jobs and money to rural communities and 
families. This buyout would allow those who have borne the brunt of 
increasingly bleak market conditions to make a fair break from this 
1930's program and continue to make a living.
  For six years, our growers have had one simple request: passage of a 
fair buyout bill that reflects the new economic reality they live in. 
Instead, all they're heard back is news of quota cut after devastating 
quota cut, with no relief in sight.
  This may be the last chance for the farmers in my district, and 
districts all over rural America. Buying out the antiquated tobacco 
program is a common sense solution for farm families that have, for too 
long, borne the brunt of bad politics and even worse economics. This 
buyout is absolutely critical to give these hard-working families and 
their communities an honest chance to survive.
  Time for action is quickly running out. Our growers simply cannot 
face another year without action.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis).
  (Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my strong opposition to the 
Flake/Van Hollen Amendment offered during consideration of the FY05 
Agriculture Appropriations bill. This amendment is counterproductive, 
potentially prohibiting USDA employees from administering a Federal 
tobacco buyout.
  The Flake/Van Hollen Amendment significantly compromises the 
legislative process by using an appropriations bill to legislate on an 
unrelated free-standing bill, aiming to reverse funding parameters on 
legislation that has yet to become law.
  The House passed version of H.R. 4520 calls for a quota buyout funded 
solely by tobacco tax revenue. Over $30 billion in combined Federal, 
State and Municipal tax revenue are raised each year from users of 
tobacco products. Utilizing these funds establishes an equitable buyout 
plan that would provide tobacco generated revenue for tobacco farmers.
  Those of us who represent tobacco growing states have been working on 
a bipartisan basis for over two years to end the depression-era price 
support system. The quota system, governing the price and supply of 
tobacco, has not been overhauled since 1986. Since the late 1990's, 
burley tobacco quotas have been cut in half, causing significant 
financial loss for family farmers who currently earn less than half the 
amount they could have earned only five years ago. A tobacco quota 
buyout is the best option Congress can provide to protect their futures 
and ensure the prosperity of state and local economies.
  With a tobacco reform package, farmers can move beyond tobacco. By 
ending the quota system, economists anticipate as many as two-thirds of 
current tobacco farmers would exit the business, without increasing 
taxes or the national debt.
  The Flake/Van Hollen Amendment attempts to impede the long-awaited 
relief American farmers need as part of Congress' effort to replace 
lost jobs and revitalize thousands of communities across the Nation who 
depend upon tobacco farming for their economic stability.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode), a 
distinguished member of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
Drug Administration and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the Committee 
on Appropriations.
  (Mr. GOODE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I rise on behalf of thousands upon thousands 
of small farmers and small quota holders across the southeastern United 
States, primarily, and urge opposition to this devastating amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, although it is questionable that the Flake amendment 
would have any impact on the payment of proceeds from the Federal 
Treasury, which receives billions of dollars annually from federal 
tobacco taxes, I still oppose this amendment because the proponents of 
the amendment regularly slam tobacco country and do not understand the 
tobacco buyout provisions in FSC/ETI, which will largely aid thousands 
of small quota holders and tobacco producers in the southeastern United 
States. I believe that the proponents have let their hatred of tobacco 
cloud their thinking in proposing this amendment. I still hope that the 
FSC/ETI legislation, which included tobacco reform legislation, will go 
forward in the Senate and that the measure will be passed and signed 
into law by the President so that many quota holders and growers can 
gracefully exit the current tobacco program and so that those who wish 
to continue growing tobacco can have an opportunity to compete with 
foreign tobacco.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Burr).
  (Mr. BURR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this misguided 
amendment.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As the entire House of Representatives can see, there is strong 
bipartisan opposition to this amendment, and it is a tribute to the 
Members for coming down here and expressing their strong views.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H5593]]

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts).

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. 
I want to commend him and the gentleman from Maryland for their 
sponsoring this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased and proud to be a cosponsor of this 
amendment. I respect all Members' opinions, but I do take exception to 
the premise that we who maybe do not have tobacco growers have no 
business offering an amendment that deals with the expenditure of $9.6 
billion of our taxpayers' funds. I think we have every right to offer 
this amendment.
  It is important to recognize that there are other proposals that 
would allow this quota system to end, allow for these small tobacco 
farmers to be adequately compensated for that right they have in these 
quotas, but it would be done in a way that is more responsible and that 
the beneficiary of the buyout, the tobacco industry, which CRS, 
Congressional Research Service, says will benefit to the tune of about 
$15 billion over the next 10 years, that the tobacco industry will pay 
for the buyout, as opposed to the American taxpayer.
  So I support the amendment. I think it is well thought out, it is 
reasonable, it is responsible. It is important to note just in the last 
several weeks two new reports have come out. In one, the latest data 
tells us that smokers, on average, have 10 years shorter life 
expectancies than non-smokers, yet we are proposing the American 
taxpayer pay $9.6 billion, instead of the industry, to help an industry 
that shortens the life of users of their products by, on average, 10 
years.
  I commend the makers of this amendment, I am pleased to stand with 
them, and I certainly urge a yes vote.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a point here that speeches 
are being made on this floor as though there is some tobacco buyout 
money in this bill. There is zero money in this bill for any tobacco 
buyout, zero money. So some of the speeches being given here are about 
spending something that we are not intending to spend anyway. There is 
nothing in this bill. I cannot emphasize that any more clearly.
  So, as Members start to appear in support of this amendment, again, I 
hope to any constituent who might be listening out there, they might be 
asking themselves what are they talking about.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, before yielding to the gentleman from Texas, I would 
just point out that if there is no money, why bother opposing this? 
This is an amendment that seeks to prohibit the expenditure of money. 
If no money is being expended, we need not worry in any other bills or 
here.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join in a bipartisan group 
in support of this amendment.
  The bill that passed through the House called for $9.6 billion of 
taxpayer dollars to be used to pay those who own these quotas for 
tobacco, and no strings were attached to that dishing out, that 
handout, of $9.6 billion. They can just keep on growing tobacco. What 
is more, the bill favored just a few select growers.
  According to an analysis by the Environmental Working Group, more 
than two-thirds of the money would go to just 10 percent of the 
recipients. The bill would pay more than $1 million to only 462 
individuals, corporations and estates.
  This amendment provides that no taxpayers' money can be used for this 
purpose. If our colleagues who want support for the tobacco growers 
want to pay for it, that is something different. But all this bill that 
passed the House would do is to increase the deficit. So the Flake-Van 
Hollen proposal before us would be to put in this appropriations bill a 
restriction not to enforce that bailout, buyout, handout, should it 
pass.
  Now, even the Louisville Courier-Journal said, rather than a buyout, 
the bill should be called an ``entitlement'' because ``farmers, quota 
holders, warehouse holders and others would end up getting taxpayer 
money pretty much just because they are who they are.''
  Well, I do not think that is the American way, to take the tax 
dollars of hard-working Americans and just give it to people, billions 
of dollars to them, just because they are who they are.
  So I think it is important to adopt this amendment, to let people who 
want to do something along these lines come back with a better 
proposal. And if they stick with the proposal that we were not even 
allowed to have a vote on in the FSC bill, then they will find that 
this restriction, should it become law, will not allow the Department 
of Agriculture to disburse the funds.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the Flake-Van Hollen amendment.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purposes of a unanimous 
consent request to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon).
  (Mr. GORDON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and 
would like to quickly remind my colleagues that this is not an 
amendment that is about smoking. I recognize a lot of folks 
understandably have concerns about smoking. But if this amendment 
passes, there will not be one less cigarette sold in this country.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purposes of a unanimous 
consent request to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Davis).
  (Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I would like to extend my 
remarks on the record. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) 
certainly is correct. This does not control smoking. I rise in 
opposition to this amendment.
  I thank the Chairman and rise in strong opposition to this amendment 
that has the potential to devastate the rural tobacco farmers in 
Tennessee's Fourth Congressional District, which I have the privilege 
to represent.
  Our great country got its first start, and in fact, market edge in 
the global economy thanks to tobacco growers. Tobacco was America's 
first true international cash crop, and helped establish America as the 
best agriculture country in the world at a time when the early settlers 
were struggling for survival. Unfortunately, in the last five years, we 
have seen quota cut by more than 50 percent, which has drastically 
decreased tobacco income and devastated our small farmers and growing 
communities. It is absolutely wrong that our tobacco farmers are being 
unfairly handicapped by the last remaining depression-era quota system 
and the availability of cheap farm labor in countries like Brazil and 
Turkey. Given this reality, it made perfect sense to vote on a Tobacco 
Buyout Provision in a bill that dealt directly with international 
business and markets.
  I am also confused by the arguments that this will not help small 
farmers. The facts show otherwise. The average buyout payment, averaged 
over all 436,719 eligible individuals, is less than $4,400 per year. 
The average quota owner now only owns about 2,000 pounds of quota. The 
average acreage among all U.S. tobacco farms is only 7.5 acres. In my 
State of Tennessee the average tobacco farm is 4.4 acres. I wish it was 
more. I wish my small, rural farmers had more acreage, and more quota, 
and could still survive growing what was once the most valuable crop in 
the country, but because of the current system they can't.
  Finally, the tobacco buyout is about creating new economic 
opportunities for communities that have been devastated by the quota 
system. 39,500 farming jobs have been lost due to changes in the 
tobacco sector. This buyout provision would bring $2.7 billion per year 
in additional economic activity to the six major tobacco states, and 
would create more than 26,000 new jobs. With the $65 million in total 
buyout payments for my constituents, we would see a net change in 
economic activity in my district roughly equal to $85 million. This is 
why I supported the tobacco buyout, and this is why I must strongly 
oppose this amendment.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purposes of a unanimous 
consent request to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).
  (Mr. WHITFIELD asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)

[[Page H5594]]

  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to commend the 
gentleman from Arizona for being concerned about our deficit, but this 
is not the proper place for it. Our farmers for many years have had 
this quota, a legal quota. They now see it being diminished by forces 
beyond their control. I would like to voice my strong opposition to the 
Flake amendment.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, before yielding to the gentlewoman from California 
(Mrs. Capps), I would like to point out the comments of the gentleman 
from Tennessee about this not being about smoking. That is exactly how 
I feel. This is about the expenditure of taxpayer dollars. This would 
still allow the expenditure of industry-funded bailouts, simply not 
taxpayer dollars.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me time, 
and I rise in support of this amendment.
  Almost 400,000 children have become regular smokers in 2004 thus far. 
124,000 of them will die prematurely because of their addiction. As a 
former school nurse, I can tell you the effects of smoking are 
devastating on our youth and on all Americans. The Surgeon General 
recently released a report showing smoking to be even more deadly than 
we had previously believed.
  This is something we can and should do something about. Part of the 
answer may be buying out tobacco farmers, but only if it is done 
properly, as part of a proposal to give the Food and Drug 
Administration the authority to regulate tobacco.
  Unfortunately, last month this House included in the FSC tax bill a 
provision to just give almost $10 billion in taxpayer money to tobacco 
companies without getting any public health benefit. The bill would not 
guarantee the exit of tobacco farmers from the market. It would 
actually result in more smoking, because the price of cigarettes would 
go down. That is not the way to deal with a problem of this enormity.
  In the other body, there has been considerable debate about passing a 
comprehensive approach that would improve public health and also 
provide assistance to struggling farmers. We should embrace such a 
proposal in this body, instead of just giving another payoff to big 
tobacco.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and 
protect the taxpayers' money.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
  (Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, we lost about 3,000 people on 
9/11. Do you know, Mr. Chairman, how long it took for cigarettes to 
kill 3,000 people? It took a bit less than 3 days. The loss of those 
3,000 people on 9/11 changed our world, and yet, today, more than 3,000 
young people will start smoking cigarettes, and more than 1,000 of them 
will die prematurely.
  Where is the outrage? I cannot yell ``fire, fire,'' in a crowded 
theater, because the logic is that somebody might get hurt trying to 
get out of the theater.
  Let me ask you, Mr. Chairman, does it make any sense that I cannot 
yell ``fire, fire,'' in a crowded theater, but we can advertise 
cigarettes in such enticing ways that 3,000 young people will start 
smoking today?
  I contend that somebody from another planet who is coming here in a 
UFO might not want to land until they learned more about a society that 
totally changes its world when 3,000 people die, but they do not seem 
to care when, the last year for which I saw data, 472,000 people died 
from smoking cigarettes.
  Mr. Chairman, if we are going to spend $10 billion, I would be happy 
to spend $12 billion productively to do something about cigarette 
smoking and the scourge to our country.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not know if you know or not, but smoking 
cigarettes kills more people, is a bigger health problem than addiction 
to all other habit-forming drugs combined. Where is the outrage? Where 
is the sense of proportion?
  I would be happy to spend $12 billion if it would do good, if it 
would reduce some of those more than 1,000 young people out of those 
3,000 that will start smoking today that are going to die prematurely 
from smoking cigarettes.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment sends the right message. Let us vote for 
it.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, there are two bases on which to go for 
this amendment. One is the economic one, and one is the health one.
  You heard my colleague from Maryland give all the reasons on the 
health side, but if you look at the simple facts out of the Department 
of Agriculture, the price supports presently for the tobacco quota 
system gives the highest yield per acre, $3,855 per acre in the year 
2002. Now, that compares to corn at $312 an acre, $215 for soybeans and 
$95 an acre for wheat.
  This is not an industry that is dying. If this money were going to 
the little farmers, that would be one thing. But if you look at the 
distribution, the way this money is going out, it goes to the big 
people, who also get a break in their taxes if they sell overseas. So 
what they are going to get out of this is cheaper production costs and 
cheaper taxes overseas.
  And what do the American people get? Nothing. We get no regulation 
from FDA, we get no protection for our children, and it costs us $9.6 
billion.
  Vote for the amendment.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of this amendment and 
against the fleecing of the American taxpayer. At this time in our 
country's history, with soaring deficits, a soaring national debt, and, 
at the same time, a soaring understanding of the harmful consequences 
of tobacco, that almost everything tobacco and tobacco smoke touches is 
harmed, at this time the very notion that the Congress would 
contemplate taking $10 billion, that is billion with a B, $10 billion 
of taxpayer money and using it to set up a new welfare program for the 
tobacco industry would be absolutely ludicrous if it were not being 
seriously considered in this Congress; in fact, considered so seriously 
that the House has it tucked away in a piece of legislation that has 
already passed this body and gone to a conference committee.
  That is why today's action is so important, because this is the first 
opportunity that the House has had an opportunity up or down to speak 
to the wisdom of taking $10 billion out of the taxpayers' pocket, not 
to improve public health, not to reduce the deficit, not to reach out 
and quiet the concern of millions of mothers whose children lack health 
insurance or to provide assistance to millions of young people who, if 
they had a doubling of their Pell Grant, would be able to go to 
college. No, to reach out and take that $10 billion not for any of 
those well-defined and worthy purposes but to take that $10 billion and 
create a new welfare program.

                              {time}  1630

  Who will get the benefit of that welfare? Well, there has been a 
recent study of that, and we learned that 354,000 people who would be 
eligible for this new benefit would get about $1,000 a year out of the 
program; but that two-thirds of the benefit would go to 10 percent of 
those who are eligible. One company in Kentucky would get $8 million.
  This is a new welfare program where all the welfare goes to the 
people at the top and the fellow with the beat-up pickup truck, who 
some have claimed here today will somehow benefit from that program, is 
not going to get very much at all. Who will benefit from this program 
before us is the big tobacco companies. Because the big tobacco

[[Page H5595]]

companies will now have a larger supply of tobacco; it will be grown in 
any State in the Nation; they will have cheaper tobacco as a result of 
this. And to anyone who says it is not about smoking, I would say this 
amendment is all about smoking. It is about smoking a $10 billion hole 
in the wallet of the American taxpayer that the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Flake) is speaking out against, and it is about the danger that 
smoking poses to millions of young people and to all of those around 
them as they become addicted to nicotine.
  We attempted to deal with this issue in the Committee on Ways and 
Means and were denied any opportunity to raise the amendment. The 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and I offered an amendment to the 
Committee on Rules and were denied any opportunity to consider this. 
The only reason that this ludicrous welfare program has gotten to this 
point is through deceit; and today, this amendment attempts to break 
through the deceit and get at a new plan, a new entitlement program 
that would pull billions from the American taxpayers and do harm to 
American health. The gentleman from Arizona attempts to get at that 
program and put a stop to it once and for all, drive a stake through 
this very bad idea in which we get no advances in public health, no 
increased wealth for the Food and Drug Administration, but simply a 
draw on the American taxpayer.
  In short, it is not a job-creation bill for any part of the country; 
it is a disease-creation proposal that he seeks to put a stop to.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
  (Mr. HAYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say hogwash to what the 
previous speaker said.
  I am in strong opposition to the Flake amendment. This is an 
amendment that would block funding from the Agriculture Department to 
administer a tobacco buyout. The amendment is not fair for our tobacco 
farmers and quota holders in North Carolina and across America.
  As we all know, the House recently passed the American Jobs Creation 
Act, which included a tobacco buyout. The most important factor, in 
fact, is not a new tax or a tax increase and it is not about smoking. 
We are simply moving 5 cents of the existing tax per pack to pay for a 
buyout that is badly owed to growers and quota holders whose quotas 
have been badly reduced.
  Mr. Chairman, when I think of a buyout, I think of the folks in the 
eighth and other districts like Ricky Carter, Junior Wilsa, and Ester 
Smith, for people who make a living with tobacco and support their 
families and put their children through college. If my colleagues 
support this amendment, they will take away my constituents' ability to 
continue to do this in the future.
  I ask all of my colleagues to vote against the Flake amendment, 
because we are getting rid of a government program and saving that 
money. Vote against the amendment.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of the time.
  Just in closing, Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that it has been 
pointed out again and again here, this does not prevent a buyout. 
Perhaps a buyout is proper, but it should happen not with taxpayer 
funds, but with industry funds. So this simply protects the taxpayer.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Boucher).
  (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding, and I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Arizona. His amendment would seek to prohibit the 
use of federal funding for the purpose of compensating tobacco quota 
owners and active tobacco producers for their federally controlled 
quota. As a Member who represents several thousand tobacco farmers, I 
can attest that legislation providing a tobacco buyout is critically 
needed to provide essential relief to the nation's tobacco farmers and 
to the economies of the rural communities in which tobacco is grown.
  Since the mid-1990's, the major cigarette manufacturers have 
dramatically increased the purchase of tobacco from other countries. As 
more tobacco has been imported into the United States, less tobacco has 
been purchased from American farms. As a direct result of the foreign 
buying practices of the nation's cigarette manufacturers, the quotas 
assigned to U.S. tobacco farmers, which are automatically set based 
upon the level of domestic demand for both burley and flu-cured 
tobacco, have decreased by more than 50 percent since 1997.
  Consequently and as a result of circumstances entirely beyond their 
control, tobacco farmers have lost more than one half of their income 
producing opportunities, and the buyout legislation has now become 
necessary. The quota, an asset which is controlled by the federal 
government, has a substantially reduced value, and its owners and users 
should be compensated for that asset's value. In today's market, the 
federal tobacco program is not operating effectively any more, and it 
is appropriate that we take steps to reform this antiquated system.
  In order to accomplish this, Congress should authorize substantial 
payments to both active tobacco farmers and inactive quota owners. 
Following the buyout, active tobacco farmers would continue to produce 
tobacco without the burden of having to enter into a lease of quota 
from inactive quota owners and the federal government would no longer 
be in the tobacco business.
  Opposition to a tobacco buyout is opposition to the financial 
interests of the nation's tobacco farmers and our rural tobacco 
producing communities.
  The tobacco buyout provisions which were passed by the House are 
essential for the farmers and communities in my district and throughout 
the tobacco producing regions of the United States. We should stand 
united in support of our communities and our tobacco farmers. In view 
of the economic harm to tobacco farmers which the reduction of the 
federally governed quota system has caused, it is only appropriate that 
the Congress provide financial compensation to these farmers, and I 
urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Flake-Van Hollen amendment to prevent taxpayer funds from being used to 
give a sweetheart deal to Big Tobacco.
  The $10 billion dollar buyout that was included in the FSC bill is 
paid for out of the pockets of taxpayers. It makes tobacco a 
legislative chit to be cashed in for an unrelated corporate tax bill 
rather than dealing with tobacco as it should be: as a public health 
issue.
  If we don't act on this today, cigarette manufacturers could take the 
entire $10 billion windfall as profit, or use part of it to lower 
prices, addicting more children and killing more Americans.
  It is no surprise that the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids and other 
public health groups consider the no-strings-attached bailout a 
complete disaster. They join us in support of this amendment.
   Senator Kennedy, Henry Waxman and I have sponsored a bill that would 
require the FDA to regulate tobacco.
  Our bill will save lives and curb youth smoking.
  Yet, the buyout would have the opposite effect by increasing tobacco 
use at the expense of taxpayers.
  The tobacco industry is already spending $30.7 million per day to 
market and advertise its products, much of it aimed at kids. Should we 
really be in the business of providing Big Tobacco with an even cheaper 
product?
  We need to pass this amendment to the Agriculture Appropriations 
bill, reject taxpayer-funded giveaways to Big Tobacco, and pass a 
strong FDA-Grower buyout bill that isn't funded by taxpayers.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order was reserved. Does any Member wish to 
make that point of order?
  If not, the Chair will put the question.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 10 Offered by Ms. Kaptur

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 10 offered by Ms. Kaptur:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following:
       Sec.     . None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to provide credits or credit guarantees for 
     agricultural commodities provided for use in Iraq in 
     violation of

[[Page H5596]]

     subsection (e) or (f) of section 202 of the Agricultural 
     Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5622).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering today would simply restate 
existing law, that none of the funds available in this act can be used 
to provide credit for use in Iraq in violation of our agricultural 
trade acts. Again, it is a restatement of existing law that the 
Commodity Credit Corporation cannot make any credit available to any 
country that the Secretary determines cannot adequately service its 
debt.
  Let us take a look at Iraq, which now owes the United States over $4 
billion. And some people may be saying, well, what does the Agriculture 
Department have to do with debts owed from Iraq? The facts are, going 
way back to the 1980s, it was through the Commodity Credit Corporation 
of the Department of Agriculture that the Saddam Hussein regime was 
financed, and the $4 billion in which Iraq is in default falls squarely 
in our laps in this committee.
  I do not favor the forgiveness of those debts. In fact, at the time, 
and this is recounted in a book called ``The Spider's Web,'' by Alan 
Friedman, ``The Secret History of How the White House Illegally Armed 
Iraq,'' there were statements made at the time by James Baker, among 
others, that these debts would be paid back through oil revenues. And 
what this amendment attempts to do is to say, we ought to support 
existing law. We should not permit the Department of Agriculture to 
extend credits to Iraq. It is a place in transition. There is not a 
normal commercial environment in which to conduct business. And it is a 
place still rife with corruption. Sometimes it is hard to know who is 
friend and who is enemy.
  The real question for us, for the USDA, should be: How should normal 
commercial transactions be handled with Iraq?
  The past is prologue. U.S. law was violated in the past when it 
concerned Iraq, and it was repeatedly used to implement foreign policy 
objectives that were not known by the vast majority of Members of this 
Congress or the American people themselves.
  The history of U.S. transactions with Iraq has been marked by fraud, 
deception, manipulation, unreported loans, and outright crime. Rumor 
has it that the administration is considering using CCC authority again 
to begin to try to sell products to Iraq. We should ask ourselves, how 
do we get strict oversight on this potential activity and, frankly, it 
should not be allowed in a normal business transaction.
  Here we have a chart, and this indicates who owes us the $4 billion. 
If we go back to the 1980s and 1990s, booked currently through, this is 
as of December of last year, it is very interesting who the American 
taxpayers are being asked to bail out. The Arab American Bank: they got 
$394,517,000 from the taxpayers of the United States, and now Iraq 
wants those debts forgiven. How about the Gulf International Bank. They 
get $907 million. They do not sound like a very poor institution to me. 
How about the National Bank of Kuwait. Why should our taxpayers give 
them $297,938? Why should we not get this money back?
  Now, it is interesting, there is a little bank here in Texas, First 
City Texas Houston Bank, they got bailed out by the taxpayers, 
$95,469,000. It is sort of interesting to look at who some of the 
people in place were when these deals were made. How about Kenneth Lay 
who was on the board of directors? How about James Elkins, Jr., who was 
chair until 1988? How about Jeff Skilling, who was working in the risk 
management division of that institution? Why should the American people 
pay the bill for this?
  This is all caught up in the policies that the Department of 
Agriculture did not want to implement, if we go back to the record and 
look; and now the American people have bailed out these banks, and Iraq 
wants forgiveness on this debt. Why do we not go back to the original 
thought, and that is, let the oil revenues pay this off? Why should we, 
through our accounts of the Commodity Credit Corporation and the 
American people, be asked to bail out some of the wealthiest 
institutions on the globe?
  How about Morgan Guarantee Trust Company of New York? $284,077,000. 
This is the record, and, of course, the big one, the Banca Nazionale 
Del Lavoro in Italy, $810 million. We all know the scandal that was 
involved with that.
  The point is, these are still claims outstanding, principle and 
interest in default by the nation of Iraq.
  My amendment would say, we should not open commercial relations with 
Iraq until these debts are paid, and all we do in the amendment is to 
reaffirm existing law.
  These are not normal circumstances in which we are dealing. There is 
uncertainty regarding the condition of the Iraqi economy, the ruling 
authorities, and a host of other issues that make additional credits 
risky at this time. And we should not put the taxpayers further at 
risk. They are already $4 billion on the hook, having bailed out these 
institutions that should have paid us in the first place.
  At the subcommittee level, we offered a more restrictive amendment 
which did not receive broad support in the committee; and so we brought 
back another amendment that merely restates existing law. I would ask 
the Members to consider my amendment to make sure that we are 
protected, our taxpayers are protected, and based on the history with 
this country that the largest banks in the world not have their hands 
in the pockets of our taxpayers. So I would ask for support for the 
Kaptur amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and 
I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Missouri 
(Mrs. Emerson).
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by my good friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  First of all, let me state for my colleagues that the report language 
in the Committee on Agriculture report simply encourages the Secretary 
of Agriculture to offer a GSM program to Iraq, an action that the USDA 
already has the statutory authority to take. Nothing in the bill or the 
report requires the Secretary to take any kind of action contrary to 
the current law.
  Meanwhile, the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur) would apparently place unnecessary restrictions on the USDA's 
use of the GSM program in Iraq.
  Now, I know that the gentlewoman has argued that her amendment simply 
restates current law. Well, if this is the case, then the amendment is 
completely unnecessary. If this is not true, then the Kaptur amendment 
puts potential U.S. agricultural sales to Iraq in jeopardy. 
Jeopardizing U.S. agricultural sales to Iraq is no small matter, 
because it is no small matter to U.S. farmers and exporters. Almost 
$3.2 billion worth of U.S. agricultural commodities were sold to Iraq 
under the GSM export credit guarantee programs from 1987 through 1990. 
This included $579 million worth of rice, $535 million of wheat and 
wheat flour, $301 million of corn, $257 million of soybean meal, $169 
million of sugar, $109 million of cotton, $61 million of dry beans, 
peas, lentils, and a long list of other commodities, including dairy 
products, eggs, leather, and lumber.
  One recent analysis indicated that U.S. rice farmers alone forfeited 
almost $2 billion in sales to Iraq as a result of the embargo against 
sales to Iraq.

                              {time}  1645

  U.S. farmers need the GSM program to be available if they are to have 
any kind of a realistic opportunity to recapture this key export 
market. The future prosperity of U.S. agriculture should not be 
jeopardized by debts piled up by the Saddam Hussein regime.
  So, in conclusion, I want to say that I would like my colleagues to 
oppose this amendment, and I would like them to oppose this amendment 
primarily because it is redundant and it is unnecessary. Adopting this 
amendment that would prohibit the use of funds for the violation of one 
narrow provision of law implies that it is acceptable to use

[[Page H5597]]

the funds in the bill to violate the broad array of other laws carried 
out by the Department of Agriculture.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Goodlatte), chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, 
and I would like to join her in opposition to this amendment.
  This is the amendment that says it is okay to give food to Iraq, but 
it is not okay to sell food to Iraq. That does not make any sense to 
me. This is a new Iraqi government, just started. We ought to give the 
discretion that the law currently allows to the Secretary of 
Agriculture to make these decisions and not take that away from the 
Department, and I would strongly oppose an amendment that would harm 
American farmers.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the fine 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment and urge my 
colleagues to do the same thing. It is appropriate because, under the 
act, all the gentlewoman from Ohio is asking is that we comply with 
existing law. It would be a lot easier if we had an administration that 
would be more forthcoming about the way this all is being handled.
  The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) has requested information, as 
have others, and this administration has refused to comply with the 
congressional request for information regarding Iraq. During their 
hearings, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) requested basic 
information about credit guarantees approved for Iraq; and despite 
USDA's promise a year ago to coordinate with the Treasury Department to 
provide these records, no information has been forthcoming.
  Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. I have faced similar 
difficulties in getting information from the administration about Iraq 
contracts. It is not just the White House. Yesterday we received some 
documents from the Defense Department we requested 6 months ago, but 
DOD still has not sent other documents requested last December.
  The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) should get the documents she 
has requested. She should get those documents if Congress can make 
informed decisions about extending agricultural credit guarantees to 
Iraq.
  In the meantime, it is essential that the administration comply with 
existing law as this amendment would have them do.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record letters pertaining 
to this issue.

                                Congress of the United States,

                                    Washington, DC, July 12, 2004.
     Secretary Ann W. Veneman,
     U.S. Department of Agriculture,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Veneman: We are writing to request 
     information regarding nearly $4 billion in unpaid credits for 
     the sale of U.S. agricultural commodities to Iraq. The 
     Departments of Treasury and Agriculture have failed to 
     adequately respond to previous requests for this information.
       During hearings before the Appropriations Subcommittee on 
     Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, 
     and Related Agencies for fiscal 2004, the Foreign 
     Agricultural Service was asked to provide copies of minutes, 
     transcripts, and reports from the National Advisory Council 
     on International Monetary and Financial Policies. Requests 
     were also made for the date, the amount, and specific votes 
     by members of the National Advisory Council for each of the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation Program credit guarantees that 
     were approved for Iraq.
       While USDA did participate in many of these meetings, the 
     response was that USDA did not have such records, including 
     the names of its own personnel who may have been involved in 
     these meetings. Instead, it was suggested that the Department 
     of Treasury would have these records. In response to these 
     questions, USDA made a promise a year ago that the Department 
     would work with Treasury to obtain these records. Despite 
     this pledge, no information has been provided. (Fiscal 2004 
     hearing, Part 7, page 641)
       In fact, when the issue was raised again earlier this year 
     in questions presented to Secretary Veneman, the response was 
     the ``the Department does not have any additional 
     information.'' (Fiscal 2005 hearings, Part 8, page 327)
       Given that the outstanding debt is nearly $4 billion in 
     combined principle and interest and that this debt is still 
     carried on the books of CCC, it is very difficult to believe 
     and harder to accept that more detailed records of how these 
     credits were approved do not exist. This is a matter that 
     should be resolved before any additional credit of any kind 
     is extended to be sure that limited resources are being used 
     in the most indicious manner.
       Additionally, in response to questions presented to the 
     Foreign Agricultural Service during hearings this year, it 
     was suggested that an IMF debt sustainability analysis was 
     expected by early May, a U.S. Government Country Risk 
     Assessment was expected by early June, and a determination by 
     the Paris Club on debt treatment was expected as soon as this 
     month. (Fiscal 2005 hearings, Part 7, page 922) We request 
     summaries of each of these reports as well.
       We ask that you provide the requested documents as soon as 
     possible.
           Sincerely,
     Marcy Kaptur,
       Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Committee on 
     Appropriations.
     Henry A. Waxman,
       Ranking Member, Committee on Government, Reform.
                                  ____



                                Congress of the United States,

                                    Washington, DC, July 12, 2004.
     Secretary John Snow,
     U.S. Department of Treasury,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Snow: We are writing to request information 
     regarding nearly $4 billion in unpaid credits for the sale of 
     U.S. agricultural commodities to Iraq. The Departments of 
     Treasury and Agriculture have failed to adequately respond to 
     previous requests for this information.
       During hearings before the Appropriations Subcommittee on 
     Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, 
     and Related Agencies for fiscal 2004, the Foreign 
     Agricultural Service was asked to provide copies of minutes, 
     transcripts, and reports from the National Advisory Council 
     on International Monetary and Financial Policies. Requests 
     were also made for the date, the amount, and specific votes 
     by members of the National Advisory Council for each of the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation Program credit guarantees that 
     were approved for Iraq.
       While USDA did participate in many of these meetings, the 
     response was that USDA did not have such records, including 
     the names of its own personnel who may have been involved in 
     these meetings. Instead, it was suggested that the Department 
     of Treasury would have these records. In response to these 
     questions, USDA made a promise a year ago that the Department 
     would work with Treasury to obtain these records. Despite 
     this pledge, no information has been provided. (Fiscal 2004 
     hearings, Part 7, page 641)
       In fact, when the issue was raised again earlier this year 
     in questions presented to Secretry Veneman, the response was 
     that ``the Department does not have any additional 
     information.'' (Fiscal 2005 hearings, Part 8, page 327)
       Given that the outstanding debt is nearly $4 billion in 
     combined principle and interest and that this debt is still 
     carried on the books of CCC, it is very difficult to believe 
     and harder to accept that more detailed records of how these 
     credits were approved do not exist. This is a matter that 
     should be resolved before any additional credit of any kind 
     is extended to be sure that limited resources are being used 
     in the most judicious manner.
       Additionally, in response to questions presented to the 
     Foreign Agricultural Service during hearings this year, it 
     was suggested that an IMB debt sustainability analysis was 
     expected by early May, a U.S. Government Country Risk 
     Assessment was expected by early June, and a determination by 
     the Paris Club on debt treatment was expected as soon as this 
     month. (Fiscal 2005 hearings, Part 7, page 922) We request 
     summaries of each of these reports as well.
       We ask that you provide the requested documents as 
     documents as soon as possible.
           Sincerely,
     Marcy Kaptur,
       Ranking Member, Subcommitte on Agriculture, Committee on 
     Appropriations.
     Henry A. Waxman,
       Ranking Member, Committee on Goverment Reform.
                                  ____

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield my remaining time to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Hinchey), a very able member of our subcommittee.
  (Mr. HINCHEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is important, because as we 
have seen in the past, particularly during the Reagan and first Bush 
administrations, the Commodity Credit Corporation has been manipulated 
by those administrations, particularly for elicit purposes.

[[Page H5598]]

  After the gassing of the Kurds in Halabjah, for example, the 
administration in 1988 when that occurred took Iraq off of the list of 
terrorist states and arranged for them to get substantial amounts of 
funding in a variety of ways, and principal among those ways was 
through the Commodity Credit Corporation. Probably more than $4 billion 
flowed to Iraq through CCC, even though the Commissioner of Agriculture 
objected to it on many grounds, not the least of which was that they 
were not likely to be repaid.
  Nevertheless, the then Vice President of the United States and others 
in the White House intervened, and the money was sent. Commodities were 
sent. We are not sure where they went. Weapons were sent. And now we 
are confronted with a situation where people take a very sanctimonious 
point of view.
  Saddam Hussein gassed his own people, the Kurds. Yes, he did, and in 
a very evil way; and 5,000 people or more were killed. What was the 
response of the American administration? More support through Commodity 
Credit Corporation, more weapons, more armaments, more chemical 
weapons. That was the response, and many of those people were in 
positions of responsibility in those administrations at the time, those 
same people who are complaining about that sanctimoniously today.
  Yes, this is a restatement of the existing law, but obviously the law 
needs to be restated.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by my colleague Ms. Kaptur is 
very simple but also critical.
  During the 1980s and early 1990s, the administrations of Ronald 
Reagan and George Bush sent billions of dollars in CCC funds to the 
regime of Saddam Hussein.
  This money was sent after the United States confirmed that Saddam 
Hussein had used chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iranians. For 
example, in November of 1983, the State Department confirmed that Iraq 
was using chemical weapons daily in attacks against the Iranians. At 
the same time, $413 million in agriculture loan guarantees were sent to 
Iraq. In 1984, despite Iraq's continued use of chemical weapons, the 
Reagan administration sent Iraq $513 million in agriculture loan 
guarantees.
  These funds enabled Hussein to purchase more weapons and strengthened 
his grip on the Iraqi people. Oftentimes, this funding was sent only 
after top ranking officials such as James Baker and George Bush 
intervened over the objections of their subordinates. An example of 
this occurred on October 31, 1989 when Secretary of State Baker 
personally intervened with the Agriculture Secretary to get him to drop 
opposition to $1 billion in food credits for Iraq. The funds were 
subsequently sent.
  These actions clearly were illegal and should never have been 
permitted.
  Ms. Kaptur's amendment simply restates the restrictions on CCC loans 
contained in current law, which were violated by previous 
administrations.
  This is extremely prescient because many of the officials responsible 
for our Iraq policy when these violations occurred are back in power in 
George W. Bush's administration. They could probably use the reminder.
  On March 16, 1988, Iraq used mustard gas and other nerve agents 
against the Kurds in Halabjah, Iraq, killing an estimated 5,000 people. 
This is an atrocity that is used by many, including the President and 
members of his cabinet, as justification for invading Iraq.
  Yet, these same people in both the Reagan and the first Bush 
administrations worked to increase aid, cooperation, trade and 
intelligence-sharing with Iraq after the gassing occurred after these 
atrocities occurred.
  Secretary of State Colin Powell was Ronald Reagan's National Security 
Adviser when the Kurds were gassed.
  Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz was Under Secretary of 
Defense for Policy from 1989 to 1993.
  National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was a director on the 
National Security Council from 1989 to 1993.
  Vice President Dick Cheney was the Republican whip in the House in 
1988 and the Secretary of Defense from 1989 until 1993.
  Even Majority Leader Tom DeLay voted against legislation imposing 
sanctions on Iraq in September of 1988 in response to the Halabja 
tragedy.
  As far as we know, not one of them opposed the massive aid and 
assistance the Reagan and Bush administrations sent after the Halabja 
bombing.
  I urge the adoption of Representative Kaptur's amendment to prevent a 
repeat of the abuse that occurred under the Reagan and Bush 
administrations.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Ms. Kaptur).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and yield 
to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a 
colloquy with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla).
  I rise today on behalf of the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd), the gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. Davis) and the rest of the Congressional Rural Caucus to request 
that as you move forward with this appropriations bill and eventually 
go to a conference committee with the Senate you will work with the 
Rural Caucus to increase appropriations for both the value-added 
agricultural product market development grant program and the rural 
broadband loan program.
  Since being authorized in the 2002 farm bill, the value-added grants 
program has been the engine that has driven many valuable projects and 
local entrepreneurs across the country. Unfortunately, this program has 
been funded well below the $40 million authorized level every year, 
resulting in lost opportunities for rural America.
  Likewise, the recently created rural broadband loan program is 
quickly proving to be an invaluable tool to rural communities in 
connecting us to broadband technology.
  Without access to this technology, rural communities will continue to 
struggle to become fully integrated into the new economy. We hope you 
will support these requests as you undergo the difficult task of 
guiding the fiscal year 2005 Agricultural, Rural Development and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Bill through this process. I know that 
you being from the Texas heartland are very sensitive to these rural 
issues, and I thank you for your leadership on these important issues.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for raising these two very important programs, value-added grants and 
rural broadband loans, which are so valuable to rural America, and I 
will work with the gentleman and the Rural Caucus as we move through 
this process. And I thank the gentleman for raising this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey

  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  THE CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hinchey:
       Page 59, line 4, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $500,000)''.
       Page 59, line 20, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(decreased by $500,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My amendment cuts $500,000 from the office of the Commissioner of the 
Food and Drug Administration and adds that money to the FDA's Center 
For Drug Evaluation and Research. It is my intention that the funds 
should be cut from the FDA's Office of General Counsel, which is housed 
in the Commissioner's office, and that those funds be added to the 
FDA's Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising and Communication, which 
is located in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
  The mission of the Food and Drug Administration is to ensure that the 
public is protected from unsafe food, drugs and medical products. The 
FDA's Chief Counsel, however, has taken the agency in a radical new 
direction, and in doing so has wasted taxpayer money on pursuits that 
are undermining FDA's basic mission.
  For the first time in history, FDA's Chief Counsel is actively 
soliciting private industrial company lawyers to bring him cases in 
which FDA can intervene in support of drug and medical device 
manufacturers. The cases he is

[[Page H5599]]

seeking out are private, State, civil litigation cases. These are cases 
in which the court has not asked the FDA's opinion. These are cases 
involving drug companies and medical device manufacturers who are being 
sued by people who have been harmed by their products. This has never 
happened before, and according to the FDA, it has spent over 622 hours 
on these cases.
  I have also uncovered what amounts to a pattern of collusion between 
the FDA and the drug companies and medical device manufacturers whom 
the FDA is defending in State courts. Here are three such cases:
  One of Mr. Troy's clients, Chief Counsel for the FDA, Mr. Troy's 
clients at Wiley, Rein was Pfizer, which in the 3 years prior to his 
appointment in the FDA paid that firm $415,000 for services provided 
directly by Mr. Troy.
  In July of 2002, Malcolm Wheeler, an attorney for Pfizer, called Mr. 
Troy, then FDA's Chief Counsel, and requested that FDA get involved in 
the private State lawsuit against Pfizer that was ongoing in 
California. Mr. Troy obliged, and in September, less than 2 months 
later, FDA through the Department of Justice filed a court brief in 
support of Pfizer.
  That same July, Mr. Troy also had a meeting with Ms. Michele Corash 
from Morrison and Foerster. Morrison and Foerster, one of the world's 
largest firms, is based in California. At the time of this meeting, it 
was representing Glaxo Smith Kline in a private lawsuit in California 
that revolved around California's Proposition 65, or the Safe Drinking 
Water and Toxic Enforcement Act. Michelle Corash was the lead attorney 
in that case. On September 12, less than 2 months after that meeting, 
Mr. Troy's FDA filed a brief in support of Ms. Corash's client Glaxo 
Smith Kline.
  This pattern continued in 2003. On December 12, 2003, FDA filed a 
statement of interest in the case of Murphree v. Pacesetter in support 
of the medical device manufacturer Pacesetter. The company was being 
sued in Tennessee State court for a faulty pacemaker. My office has 
obtained the letter to FDA dated November 5, 2003, from the law firm of 
Feldman, Gale and Weber directing FDA on how it should assist its case 
against the person whose Pacesetter did not work. The firm was 
representing the Pacesetter.
  Another pursuit of FDA's Chief Counsel was his publishing in the 
Federal Register a notice questioning whether FDA's own regulations 
complied with the first amendment. This notice is troubling because it 
would surely be used against FDA in lawsuits.
  Because of the unusual nature of this action, CRS looked for a 
precedent, and what it found was this: ``We were not able to uncover 
any similar instance where a Federal agency issued a notice seeking the 
type of public comment on a constitutional issue and regulatory issue 
such as this one which was sought out by Mr. Troy.''
  After receiving 700 filings and spending 600 hours on this matter, 
the FDA decided to drop it, once again wasting taxpayer money.
  But this amendment is about more than just an FDA office wasting 
money. FDA's Chief Counsel is taking actions to undermine FDA's ability 
to carry out its mission. He is shutting down avenues used to expose 
fraud in the drug industry. He is making it easier for drug companies 
to produce misleading advertisements.
  Instead of spending taxpayer dollars to make it easier to defraud the 
public, the FDA should be protecting the public and its interests.
  My amendment would add funds to FDA's Division of Drug Marketing, 
Advertising and Communication. This division, which consists now of 
only seven people, is responsible for reviewing the accuracy of 
prescription drug consumer-directed advertisements. Last year, these 
seven people reviewed 38,400 such ads. This is a 6 percent increase 
over the previous year.
  However, despite the increase in ads reviewed, the number of 
enforcement letters sent by FDA to drug manufacturers for false and 
misleading advertisements dropped 75 percent. They are only doing 25 
percent of the work that they did previously. It dropped 75 percent in 
2003.
  The reason for this drop was not the drug companies suddenly cleaned 
up their act. In fact, all public information indicates the contrary. 
The real reason is a conscious effort on the part of the FDA to weaken 
advertising regulations.
  Shortly after the Bush administration took office, FDA's Chief 
Counsel instituted a policy that all advertising warning letters go 
through his office, the Office of Chief Counsel.

                              {time}  1700

  Prior to this, all letters were sent from the Division of Drug 
Marketing. So now that they go through the Office of Chief Counsel, we 
have had this 75 percent reduction in enforcement. This extra money 
would strengthen FDA's division for drug marketing's ability to 
identify misleading ads that it sends to the FDA's Chief Counsel's 
office. It is clear this division is overwhelmed and requires more 
assistance. I urge support for this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment. I rise to say we do not have opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Kaptur

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Kaptur:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
       Sec.   . None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to pay the federal share of 
     the administrative costs of any state's operation of the food 
     stamp program that are performed outside the United States, 
     except that the amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by increasing the amount made available under the 
     heading ``Food Stamp Program'' by $6,500,000 for expenses 
     under section 16 of the Food Stamp Act.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits the use of funds in this bill 
to pay for outsourcing food stamp call center jobs to foreign 
countries. We used to have amendments on these bills that were 
identified ``Buy American.'' Today I offer one to ``Hire an American.''
  It would basically change the behavior of the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture and our respective States that receive food stamp dollars 
and in turn are outsourcing the call center jobs associated with food 
stamps to Mexico and to India and to other foreign countries.
  The Richmond Times Dispatch reported in March that 38 States had been 
exporting our jobs since 2001. Since then we have learned from the 
Congressional Research Service that in fact 42 States have outsourced 
some part of their food stamp call center operations.
  Think about that. The calls relate to food stamps for people inside 
the United States of America. Only Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Mississippi, 
Montana, Ohio, Texas, and Wyoming have their call centers exclusively 
inside the United States. Other States are beginning to look at this 
issue and take action, but this deserves national attention since these 
are dollars that fund the food stamp programs in all of our States.
  It is also ironic that the biggest account in this entire bill is the 
food stamp program, ringing in at $33 billion being paid out to needy 
Americans. Given the complexity that some people face when trying to 
complete those applications or find out where there may be stores that 
accept electronic benefit technology, you would expect that our 
constituents would be able to reach someone in their own community or 
our States who might be better able to relate to the problems that they 
are facing in their own lives.
  So we provide $33 billion for food stamps to all of our States, and 
that is

[[Page H5600]]

a program that has increased 46 percent in just the last 4 years.
  Many banking companies have become the intermediaries that are 
administrating the food stamp program and end up putting those jobs in 
other countries. Would it not be better use of American taxpayer funds 
to try to hire unemployed individuals? In fact, some of those receiving 
food stamps who could get off these food stamps by having good jobs at 
these call centers.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inform the gentlewoman 
that we have reviewed this amendment and would be happy to accept the 
amendment if she would like.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman so very much for 
that.
  I would be concluding my remarks and saying with all of our veterans 
returning home, many of them disabled now, this is an absolutely 
perfect opportunity to transition them into jobs with adequate training 
and why should we not be using tax dollars to help our own people get 
jobs right here at home. I thank the chairman very much for his 
consideration and for the membership. This is a great victory for the 
American people.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Kaptur

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Kaptur:
       Add at the end (before the short title), the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 7__. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by reducing the amount made available under title I 
     for ``Office of the Chief Information Officer'' and by 
     increasing the amounts made available under title I for 
     ``Marketing Services'' under the heading ``AGRICULTURAL 
     MARKETING SERVICE'' (for the Farmers Market Promotion Program 
     and administrative expenses related to such program), by 
     $6,000,000 and $6,000,000, respectively.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and a Member opposed will each 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the farm bill established for the first time the 
Farmers Market Promotion Program to expand and promote our farmers 
markets around the country, to help farmers increase their sales at 
roadside stands and community-supported farmers markets across this 
country.
  My proposal would take $6 million from the Chief Information 
Officer's account and put it in this program. Though authorized by the 
farm bill, there were no funds appropriated to this account that were 
in the bill that cleared the subcommittee.
  What this program does, it would give additional traction to farmers 
who are farming especially around our large urban areas to earn money 
from the market place rather than from subsidy programs. It is a 
direct-marketing program. None of the dollars in this measure go to 
buildings and so forth. And it is really aimed at those farmers that 
are trying to hang on and earn money from the market place.
  The average age of farmers in our country is now about 58 years old. 
This is a very small amount of money coming out of a bill that is over 
$80 billion, but really it has so much effect. If you go up here just 
on the street on the Mall and you look at the farmers market that 
operates outside the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the roadside 
stands that exist in many of the communities in which we live, or I was 
talking to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) and on the 
Lower East Side of Manhattan this weekend, farmers were able to bring 
their product there and have a real opportunity to market in a very 
high-priced part of the United States where there is a lot of the 
poverty.
  This program is aimed at expanding those types of efforts and 
connecting the farm to the town, helping our farmers move their 
diversified product. And many of these farmers are not on any subsidy 
program. They raise vegetables. They raise fruits. They process the 
product. They bring them to the farmers market. This would really help 
them to expand their ability to market.
  So we just basically move funds inside the bill from the 
administrative account of the Chief Information Officer, and we put it 
over in the account that deals with this farmers market program that 
was established in the new farm bill.
  When Secretary Veneman spoke at the opening of the USDA Farmers 
Market just a little more than 2 weeks ago, she talked about how 
farmers were gravitating to farmers markets and trying more 
sophisticated ways to market their products because of the difficulties 
that are being faced in the general market place itself as it becomes 
more difficult for small entrepreneurs, small business people to move 
their product to market. So we know that the need is great.
  The 2002 Census of Agriculture showed a 37 percent increase just 
since 1997 in direct sales to consumers. And we know that the interest 
is there. We know our farmers need a lot of help in marketing. Most 
farmers, if you ask them what is the worst thing they do, they say it 
is market simply because they spend all their time growing, all their 
time picking and displaying, and it is hard for them to move product to 
market. This is something that will make a difference immediately.
  It will also help farmers avoid the slotting fees that they have to 
pay if they are asked to show in a supermarket. They cannot afford 
$50,000 or $25,000 to put their product right on the shelf. It gives 
them an alternate direct-marketing opportunity.
  I would ask the Members for their support of this very worthy 
program, to give life to the farmers marketing program that was 
authorized in the new farm bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman has already voted to zero out the 
agriculture buildings and facilities account. Cutting the CIO account 
would result in a direct loss of Federal jobs. The amendment for 
farmers markets would result in an increase of $5.2 million, or a 600 
percent increase.
  The minority views in this report highlight a lot of funding 
shortfalls; and we have been reviewing them, not just today, but since 
they have arrived when they were completed. Not one of the amendments 
that has been offered today attempts to put money in any of the 
programs that were highlighted in the minority views. In fact, this 
amendment adds money to a newly authorized program.
  I oppose this amendment and I ask that all Members who care about 
this bill oppose it as well. This is, again, somewhat of a flailing to 
try to put money into this program when, again, we find it interesting 
that many of the views expressed by the minority on this bill, none of 
those were addressed but yet there is an attempt to put money into this 
program.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing today, I would just like to ask the Members 
of this House to think about the communities that they represent, how 
many farmers markets, how many potential farmers markets, how many 
roadside stands could be helped by additional marketing authority. We 
are not taking or creating any new money here. We are just moving money 
from an information account to a direct-market account for farmers to 
put income in their pockets through direct marketing of their own 
product, made and grown and harvested with their own hard labor. And I 
am always proud to stand up on behalf of the farmers of our country and 
try to help them find new ways to the market.

[[Page H5601]]

  I would urge the membership to vote in favor of the Kaptur amendment 
for farmers markets across this country.
  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, I reiterate our strong opposition to this amendment and 
urge a ``no'' vote.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of my friend, 
Representative Kaptur's amendment, the Farmers' Market Promotion 
Program. This amendment would make grants to cooperatives, local 
governments, nonprofit corporations, and other groups that will 
increase the number of direct producer to consumer market 
opportunities.
  This bill is a win-win all around. Farmers will have more markets for 
their goods. Consumers will have access to fresh-picked produced. And 
cities, towns, and hamlets--any area fortunate enough to have such a 
market at its core--will benefit from the economic ripples that will 
flow through their communities.
  I have seen the boon these farmers' markets bring at first hand. For 
many years, the Rochester Public Market in my New York district has 
both benefited farmers in the adjacent counties while it has become a 
true gathering place for all our citizens. It's just the place to go--
and with good reason. Who doesn't thrill when the first local tomatoes 
appear, or delight in the smell of fresh basil while buying just-picked 
corn that will go to the dinner table the same day? And that's just 
from the consumer's point of view. For our Monroe County farmers, it 
represents a fast and dependable way to move their goods to market 
productively without the otherwise inevitable middlemen.
  In Buffalo, I have recently spearheaded a similar project on the East 
Side of the city, which is in dire need of economic stimulus such as 
this. In April, Congresswoman Kaptur came to the announcement of a 
major overhaul of the country's oldest public market, which is now in 
need of revitalization--the Broadway Market. She, along with New York 
State Agriculture Market officials, Buffalo and Erie County officials, 
and agriculture leaders helped brainstorm ways we can return the Market 
to its former glory. We want it to become the finest farmer's market in 
the state--and after such a fine start, I'm sure it will. The farmers 
of Erie, Orleans, and Niagara Counties will reap the financial harvest.
  This Farmer's Market Amendment would provide $6 million to help other 
communities initiate worthwhile projects like the Buffalo Market by 
providing the seed money necessary for them to blossom and grow. That 
is exactly what the Agriculture Appropriations bill should be doing 
across the country, and why I hope my colleagues will join me in a 
favorable vote.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Kaptur 
amendment to provide a modest $6 million in funding for the Farmers' 
Market Promotion Program. This program was established by the Farm Bill 
to make grants to cooperatives, nonprofits, local governments, economic 
development corporations and regional farmers' market authorities for 
projects to establish, expand, and promote farmers' markets, roadside 
stands, and community supported agriculture programs. Unfortunately, 
the program has never been funded.
  At a time when we spend billions on programs that primarily assist 
large agribusinesses, Congress needs to reaffirm its commitment to help 
farmers most in need of assistance. This relatively small investment in 
the Farmers' Market Promotion Program will produce economic benefits to 
small farmers and local communities that far exceed the $6 million 
investment we are proposing in this amendment.
  Farmers' markets are essential sources of income for thousands of 
small farmers. They provide farmers with direct access to consumers, 
and, in many instances, all of the small farmer's income comes from 
sales at farmers' markets. In a USDA survey of 772 farmers' markets, 
over 6,000 farmers said they sell their products only at farmers' 
markets.
  Mr. Chairman, consumers also benefit from farmers' markets. Consumer 
demand for locally grown food produced by small farmers is on the rise. 
For safe, nutritious food, Americans place more trust in smaller scale 
farms. According to a recent national consumer survey, seven in ten 
Americans said smaller scale family farms are more likely than large 
farms to use techniques that won't hurt the environment.
  Farmers' markets also help promote nutrition education, wholesome 
eating habits, and better food preparation, as well as boost the local 
community's economy. Many urban communities where fresh, nutritious 
foods are scarce gain easy access to quality foods at fair prices.
  Consumers also have the opportunity to personally interact with the 
farmer who grows the produce. I enjoy spending Saturdays shopping at 
the farmers' markets in my district and interacting with the farmers. I 
know many of my colleagues have similar positive experiences at markets 
in their district.
  The sights and smells of fresh produce, a conversation with a local 
farmer about the weather and growing techniques--these experiences make 
shopping at farmers' markets such a unique and enjoyable experience.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Kaptur amendment to provide a 
modest but important investment in the Farmers' Market Promotion 
Program. Let's take this opportunity to help family farmers and 
consumers.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) will 
be postponed.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I 
yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if Members under the unanimous 
consent request had thought that their amendments were so important why 
they would not be here to offer them. It seems a little odd to me that 
when someone actually gets their amendment into the unanimous consent 
request because they think they have an important issue that is so 
earthshaking or so dramatic or so important, and yet when the hour 
arrives for their amendment to be considered, they do not come and 
offer it, I wonder how important the amendment really is.
  So I wonder if we ought to just consider having the committee rise 
and vote on the bill. That seems to be the appropriate thing to do.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONILLA. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I was simply trying to facilitate the 
committee's work in trying to reach agreement on language that the 
gentleman from Virginia on your side of the aisle indicated he wanted 
to see in this bill, but if the gentleman does not want to wait for us 
to do that then I would be happy to pass it by and move on.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONILLA. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I think, out of courtesy to the gentleman 
from Virginia earlier today, it would have been nice if the ranking 
member of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
Drug Administration and Related Agencies would have had the courtesy to 
recognize him when he was on the floor and could not get to the 
microphone. There was no consideration given to his ability when he had 
an important matter that he wanted considered, and out of courtesy that 
would have been nice to have been done.
  If it had been done on the other side, if a Member on your side had 
been treated the way that the Member was treated on our side, I am sure 
there would have been many, many procedural votes today. But, 
apparently, the ranking member on the Committee on Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies did not 
have the courtesy or the common decency to allow the Member to have his 
say or the right just to have his say.
  I guess that is the way it is, and we see from time to time when that 
courtesy is not extended to your Members, all you-know-what breaks 
loose around here.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his remarks.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONILLA. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that I was informed that 
the gentleman from Virginia on your side of the aisle, that he was 
prevented from getting to the microphone by a Member of his own party. 
So I was not on the floor, I did not see what happened, but if the 
gentleman would prefer to resurrect old antagonisms rather

[[Page H5602]]

than to solve problems, I am perfectly happy to leave this mess exactly 
where it is.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONILLA. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I know that the gentleman from Wisconsin is 
a very fair-minded person, and had he been on the floor and recognized 
what was done to the gentleman from Virginia I am sure he would have 
persuaded the ranking member to owe him the courtesy to give him a 
chance to speak.


                 Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Tiahrt

  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Tiahrt:
       Add at the end (before the short title) the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 7__. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to pay for the official travel of employees of the 
     Department of Agriculture whose station of duty is at the 
     Washington D.C. headquarters of the Department until the 
     Secretary of Agriculture certifies to Congress that the 
     Secretary has implemented a voluntary program under which 
     beef slaughtering establishments may acquire and use rapid 
     screen testing kits to test beef carcasses for the presence 
     of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) and a Member opposed will each 
control 5 minutes.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. 
Tiahrt).
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My amendment would restrict travel funds for USDA employees who are 
working in Washington, D.C., until the Secretary of Agriculture 
implements a voluntary program for beef slaughtering establishments to 
screen for BSE, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, mad cow disease as it 
is commonly known.
  Right now, America has the safest beef in the world, and a lot of it 
comes from the great State of Kansas, but this is not about food 
safety. This is about trying to meet the demands of customers.
  Creekstone Farms Premium Beef is a small packing company in Arkansas 
City. At that location, they employ about 750 workers who have been 
reduced from 5-day work weeks to 4 days because we have failed to open 
up markets in Japan and South Korea. The reason that has happened is 
because they have demanded in those markets that we have some kind of 
100 percent screening. The USDA has not allowed this to occur. It is my 
personal view that USDA should be in the business of setting minimum 
standards and not maximum standards, but because of this ban, America 
has lost in exports to Japan and South Korea nearly $1 billion worth of 
exports.
  According to the USDA, that number is approximately $959 billion over 
the last 6 months. Over the year, it will be close to $1.5 billion, 
maybe $2 billion.
  I just want the floor to know, Mr. Chairman, that we need to allow 
American processors to have the flexibility to meet the demands 
customers are bringing to them.
  In Japan, they already have their beef labeled as BSE tested. That is 
all we are asking for here, is to allow that screening to go on and for 
it to occur. The cost would be about $15 per head. We have already lost 
in exports enough to test the entire 35,000 cattle that are processed 
every year in America, but because we have not been able to do that, we 
are looking at a loss of exports, plus loss of jobs here in America.
  The amount of beef that is being sold in Japan and South Korea 
continues, but it is being supplied by Australian and New Zealand 
suppliers instead of American suppliers. So what we are trying to do is 
open up these markets back again for American beef processors.
  I also want to make a point, Mr. Chairman, that in the past, during 
the free market system, we have said that the customer's demands ought 
to be met, the customer is always right, but currently we are not 
seeing that allowed because of inaction by USDA.
  We know that in California that auto manufacturers meet unique safety 
and environmental standards, and they gladly put a little higher price 
tag for that, but currently we are not allowing American beef 
processors to put a little added extra safety in and charge a little 
more for it for those customers who want it.
  So I have this amendment that would restrict travel for headquarters 
Washington USDA employees until a voluntary program is allowed to move 
forward. This is a very simple amendment. It does not go into a great 
deal of detail, but it makes a very strong point that we need to allow 
our processors to meet the demand of their customers.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Texas insist on his point of 
order?
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I will make a point of order, but I do 
want to point out that the gentleman raises a very important issue. It 
is just that it does not fit in this particular part of the bill.
  I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to 
change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations 
bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part: An amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. The 
amendment imposes additional duties.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Kansas wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I do realize that I am moving towards an 
authorization-type language on an appropriations bill, but I thought 
the issue was important enough that it should be brought to the floor 
of the House and that I should ask for a vote on it.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the point of 
order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new 
duty, and the amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in 
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.


                Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mrs. Maloney

  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 11 offered by Mrs. Maloney:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following section:
       Sec. 759. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to restrict to prescription use a contraceptive that 
     is determined to be safe and effective for use without the 
     supervision of a practitioner licensed by law to administer 
     prescription drugs under section 503(b) of the Federal Food, 
     Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and a Member opposed each will 
control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  My amendment would simply require the FDA to do the job that they are 
supposed to be doing. If the FDA finds the drug to be safe and 
effective for over-the-counter use, then the FDA cannot withhold the 
drug from over-the-counter status for nonstatutory reasons.
  Americans rely on the Food and Drug Administration to make 
scientific, evidence-based decisions that are in the best interests of 
the American public and that will help improve our health. The majority 
of the time this is exactly what happens. Unfortunately, a recent FDA 
decision on whether to grant over-the-counter status for Plan B, an 
emergency contraceptive pill, went against the advice of the 
independent, expert advisory committee and the advice of FDA staff. The 
decision was not science-based and was not made in the best interests 
of American women. Instead, it was a decision influenced by 
inappropriate political and ideological considerations.

[[Page H5603]]

  The Maloney-Waxman amendment would basically say that the FDA would 
have to rely on science in making these decisions, and in this 
amendment we are with the world community. Thirty-three nations have 
approved the sale of emergency contraceptives for over-the-counter use, 
and five States in the United States have also approved it.
  The American Medical Association, the American College of 
Gynecologists and over 70 medical and public health groups have 
endorsed making emergency contraceptives available for over-the-counter 
because they believe that they are proven to be safe to use without any 
medical supervision.
  I would place in the Record 10 editorials from newspapers across the 
country stating that science should be the basis for making medical 
decisions at the FDA, not politics.

                [From washingtonpost.com, May 11, 2004]

                               New Plans

       At first glance, the news that the Food and Drug 
     Administration had decided to reject over-the-counter sales 
     of the emergency contraceptive Plan B seemed dramatic. As we 
     pointed out earlier this year, the science around this drug 
     is not controversial. In several international studies, the 
     drug has been shown to be safe and effective if taken within 
     72 hours of intercourse--hence the request of its 
     manufacturer, Barr Laboratories, to make it available over 
     the counter. The FDA's own scientific advisory panel 
     unanimously approved the request, and such a move would be 
     popular. Most of the time, Plan B acts like a birth control 
     pill, preventing ovulation and therefore conception: The 
     greater use of Plan B therefore means fewer abortions.
       But because Plan B may also prevent fertilized eggs from 
     being implanted in a uterus, it has attracted negative 
     political attention. Some of the drug's political opponents, 
     those who equate a fertilized egg with a fetus, have called 
     it an ``abortion pill'' and have lobbied the FDA hard to 
     restrict it. Both state and national legislators have spoken 
     out against the drug, partly on those grounds and partly out 
     of concern for its impact on underage sex, leading many to 
     fear that the FDA would make a political rather than a 
     scientific decision.
       In fact, though the FDA has banned the drug from over-the-
     counter use, it left open a window for future approval. ``We 
     weren't closing the door,'' said Steven Galson, acting 
     director of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and 
     Research. Indeed, if the FDA ruling is taken at face value, 
     the only thing required of Barr is that it either conduct 
     more studies of the drug's impact on younger women or come up 
     with a plan to ensure that the drug is available only by 
     prescription to girls younger than 16: According to Dr. 
     Galson, the FDA was bothered by the paucity of data 
     describing the impact of the drug on girls ages 14 to 16 and 
     the absence of data on girls younger than that, some of whom 
     might presumably try to buy the drug. The company says it is 
     ``months, rather than years'' away from providing precisely 
     such information.
       The FDA is within its rights to remain cautious about a 
     controversial drug. But if the agency wants to preserve its 
     reputation for making decisions based on sound science, it 
     will stick to this proposal and grant Barr the license to 
     sell the drug as soon as the information or a suitable plan 
     becomes available. At this point, the FDA should be given the 
     benefit of the doubt--but not indefinitely.
                                  ____


                 [From the New York Times, May 9, 2004]

                        The President and Women

       The arrival of an over-the-counter morning-after pill in 
     American drugstores has been delayed by a disappointing, 
     politically motivated decision by the Food and Drug 
     Administration. Wider availability of the pill would make it 
     easier to avert unwanted pregnancies and reduce the rate of 
     abortions. But once again, the Bush administration seems 
     determined to make things difficult for women in America. 
     It's ironic, since President Bush has included more women in 
     his innermost circle of advisers than any prior chief 
     executive. Condoleezza Rice, the administration's most 
     prominent female presence, has presided as national security 
     adviser while a wholesale assault has taken place on the 
     reproductive rights and health of poor women overseas. That 
     assault began on President Bush's first full day in office 
     with his reimposition of the Reagan-era global ``gag 
     rule,'' badly hampering international family planning and 
     the fight against sexually transmitted diseases. On the 
     domestic side, where Karen Hughes, Mr. Bush's former 
     communications director, is still one of the most powerful 
     forces, the record is equally dim. A new report by the 
     National Council for Research on Women documents many 
     small but important steps to manipulate information to the 
     detriment of women and trust. Ms. Hughes herself made news 
     in one recent interview when she appeared to suggest a 
     parallel between supporters of abortion rights and 
     terrorists. Asked on CNN whether abortion would be an 
     election issue, Ms. Hughes said that she sensed that 
     ``after September 11th the American people are valuing 
     life more and realizing that we need policies to value the 
     dignity and worth of every life.'' Driving home that 
     connection, she added that ``the fundamental difference 
     between us and the terror network we fight is that we 
     value every life.''
       That interview occurred as an estimated one million people 
     were gathering peacefully in Washington to protest the 
     administration's dismal record on reproductive freedom, 
     medical privacy and other issues vital to women. The turnout 
     did not deter the administration from stopping the progress 
     of the morning-after pill, which can reduce the chance of 
     pregnancy if taken within 72 hours after intercourse. Some 
     social conservatives have claimed that the pill might 
     encourage teenage promiscuity--an argument that appears to 
     have influenced the FDA more than the agency's own expert 
     panel, which voted 23 to 4 to make the pill available over 
     the counter, or the support of more than 70 medical and 
     public health organizations.
       In its decision, the FDA said the pills could not be made 
     available without a prescription until the manufacturer 
     figures out a way to keep young girls from obtaining them, or 
     provided additional evidence that teenagers 16 and under 
     could understand the directions for their use. These barriers 
     seem artificially high. There are many over-the-counter drugs 
     that could be harmful if used in the wrong way, but were not 
     prevented from coming to market by speculative concerns about 
     how they might be abused by young consumers.
       We appreciate Mr. Bush's willingness to create an 
     administration with strong women. We just wish that 
     translated into an administration that was strong on women's 
     issues.
                                  ____


            [From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, May 11, 2004]

                             Plan B. Stall

       What if, instead of approving the new generation of 
     cholesterol-lowering drugs, the government turned them down 
     for fear they would encourage people to continue overeating? 
     Last week, the Food and Drug Administration used precisely 
     that sort of tortured logic in rejecting Barr 
     Pharmaceutical's application to sell the so-called morning-
     after pill without a doctor's prescription. The high-dose 
     birth control pill, sold under the name Plan B, can prevent 
     pregnancy if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex.
       The FDA's Dr. Steven Galson said the company had failed to 
     provide documentation about the drug's safety for girls 16 or 
     younger. Dr. Galson also said that making Plan B more widely 
     available would encourage teenagers to have unprotected sex. 
     The question isn't whether 16-year-olds should be having sex. 
     Of course they shouldn't; it's emotionally and physically 
     dangerous. The question is what to do when bad judgment 
     overwhelms good intentions. And--as teen pregnancy and 
     sexually transmitted disease rates show with depressing 
     clarity--that happens regularly in all age groups. Keeping 
     Plan B from being sold over the counter won't change that. 
     But it could give women of all ages a prompt, private and 
     less physically and psychologically stressful option to 
     abortion.
       In December, an FDA advisory panel overwhelmingly 
     recommended making Plan B available without a prescription. 
     More than 70 leading medical and public health groups have 
     endorsed that conclusion. So did the FDA staff members 
     responsible for reviewing the findings. It's all but unheard 
     of for the FDA to reject the conclusions of both its advisory 
     panel and review staff.
       Making Plan B more widely available would have alienated 
     the president's conservative political base. It may be that 
     this decision is just an election year stalling tactic. 
     Perhaps after the election, the FDA leadership will see fit 
     to reverse its irrational decision. In any case, it 
     demonstrates--yet again--in what low regard the Bush 
     administration holds women's health and reproductive freedom.
       This is not the first time political considerations have 
     trumped science in the Bush administration. Once again, it 
     clearly shows that it is impossible to create good public 
     health policy by subverting science for political ends.
                                  ____


                      [From Newsday, May 11, 2004]

              Morning-After Pill: Politics Stall `Plan B'

       The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's rejection of a bid 
     to sell an emergency contraceptive, the so-called morning-
     after pill, over the counter, smacks of politics trumping 
     science.
       The application by Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc. to sell its 
     ``Plan B'' without a prescription was ``not approvable,'' 
     according to the FDA, because Barr hadn't adequately 
     documented whether consumers under age 16 could use it safely 
     without a physician's advice. Officials said they did not bow 
     to political pressures in making the decision.
       But emergency contraception is already available without 
     prescription in six states and 33 other countries. Despite 
     that record, Dr. Steven Galson, acting director of the FDA's 
     Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, overruled both his 
     staff and an advisory panel of outside medical experts when 
     he blocked over-the-counter sales. That's highly unusual, if 
     not unprecedented.
       Morning-after pills contain hormones used in standard birth 
     control pills. Taken within 72 hours of unprotected 
     intercourse, Barr says its ``Plan B'' reduces the risk of 
     pregnancy by 89 percent. But it's most effective within 24 
     hours of intercourse, so waiting to see a doctor could pose a 
     problem.

[[Page H5604]]

       The FDA gave Barr two options: Provide data showing that 
     adolescents understand how to use the pills, what they're for 
     and the appropriate dose; or draft labeling for over-the-
     counter sales to women over 16 and prescription sales for 
     those under 16. Company officials say over-the-counter 
     availability will be delayed at least a year.
       President George W. Bush has chipped away at abortion 
     rights and imposed restrictions on U.S. funding for 
     international family planning. Going against scientific 
     advice to block over-the-counter sales of the morning-after 
     pill fits the pattern.
                                  ____


                 [From the Boston Globe, May 11, 2004]

                        Morning-After Roadblock

       Rejecting the overwhelming opinion of its own panel of 
     experts, an official of the Food and Drug Administration last 
     week blocked a bid by a drug company to make its morning-
     after contraceptive available over the counter. This 
     politically driven decision will almost certainly result in 
     more unintended pregnancies and more abortions.
       Barr Laboratories' Plan B, which contains high doses of one 
     of the hormones in birth-control pills, prevents 89 percent 
     of pregnancies if taken within 72 hours of intercourse. 
     According to the company, it does so by interfering with 
     ovulation or preventing fertilization. Some research has 
     suggested that in some cases it might keep a fertilized egg 
     from implanting in a woman's uterus. This has led many 
     abortion opponents to oppose Plan B. Social conservatives 
     also criticize it for, in their opinion, encouraging 
     promiscuity.
       While advocates of reproductive choice acknowledge that 
     morning-after pills do not provide the protection condoms do 
     against sexually transmitted diseases, they support easier 
     access to Plan B.
       Late last year, Barr's request for approval of over-the-
     counter sales of Plan B, which is now available by 
     prescription, was supported 23-4 by the FDA's expert panel. 
     Over-the-counter sales have also been backed by the FDA's own 
     staff, by the American College of Obstetricians and 
     Gynecologists, and other physicians' organizations. Plan B 
     has been available in several states through pharmacists who 
     have agreements with physicians. Normally the FDA follows the 
     guidance of its advisory panels and staff, especially when 
     there is a consensus. The official who disapproved over-the-
     counter sales, Steven Galson, acting director of the FDA's 
     Center for Drug Evaluation, denied he made the decision for 
     political reasons. He told Barr he disapproved the request 
     because only 29 of the 585 women studied by the company were 
     under age 16--too small a sample, in his opinion, to prove 
     its safety with teenagers.
       Galson has said he was concerned that easy availability of 
     Plan B might make young women more likely to have sex without 
     condoms, exposing themselves and their partners to diseases. 
     Often in cases in which research provided by a drug maker is 
     deemed by the FDA to be inadequate, the agency tells the firm 
     its drug is ``approvable'' if it takes further steps. Galson, 
     instead, chose to call Barr's plan ``not approvable,'' which 
     left no doubt about his position to the Bush administration's 
     supporters among social conservatives.
       In January, 60 of the nation's leading scientists 
     criticized the Bush administration for systematically 
     suppressing or misrepresenting science in making decisions. 
     The Union of Concerned Scientists issued a report detailing 
     such politicization of science. The White House denied the 
     charge. By its action on Plan B, the administration has given 
     the scientists new evidence to back their accusation.
                                  ____


             [From the Philadelphia Inquirer, May 11, 2004]

                 Plan B Scrapped; Facts Lose Out, Again

       A main job of the Food and Drug Administration is to weigh 
     the safety and reliability of drugs used by Americans, based 
     on scientific evidence.
       The agency's regrettable decision last week to deny over-
     the-counter status for emergency contraception pills smacks 
     primarily of politics, not science.
       The facts favor the opposite decision.
       In an overwhelming vote last December, two FDA advisory 
     panels declared that emergency contraception is safe and that 
     these two-dose, birth-control pills should be readily 
     available to women and adolescents desperate to prevent 
     pregnancy after unprotected sex. The American Academy of 
     Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and 
     Gynecologists and the American Public Health Association all 
     agreed.
       The FDA seemed poised to accept the recommendations of its 
     expert advisers--something the agency almost always does.
       Buth then politics and religion intervened. Last January, 
     49 Republican members of Congress sent a letter to President 
     Bush voicing concerns that over-the-counter emergency 
     contraception--or EC as it is known--might make adolescents 
     more promiscuous. Leading the anti-EC charge was Concerned 
     Women for America--an organization uncomfortable with all 
     forms of birth control pills.
       Suddenly, the FDA said it needed a 90-day delay before 
     making its EC decision and asked the EC producer, Barr 
     Laboratories, to respond to many of the questions posed by 
     members of Congress.
       Then last week came the FDA's wrong decision: No over-the-
     counter status for EC--unless Barr could prove easy access to 
     the drug was safe for adolescents under 16.
       Yes, it definitely would be better if there were more data 
     describing likely use among teens. And there is no dismissing 
     the concerns of parents who worry about their young daughters 
     being able to buy EC pills off the shelf.
       But studies should allay those fears. They have shown women 
     and teens who have access to EC aren't more likely to engage 
     in unprotected sex or less likely to use disease-preventing 
     condoms. And there is no data to suggest that availability of 
     EC would encourage very young teens, 14 and younger, to have 
     sex. Even with readily available condoms, the sexual activity 
     rate in the young crowd remains, thankfully, low.
       The real danger lies in denying women and older teens ready 
     access to EC. To be effective, Barr's EC pill product--called 
     Plan B--must be taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex to 
     prevent unwanted pregnancy. Imagine the hurdles faced by a 
     30-year-old woman who must see a doctor and secure an EC 
     prescription in that time frame. Now imagine a 16-year-old 
     girl--perhaps the victim of date rape--trying to do that.
       In its rejection letter, the FDA asked Barr to consider 
     allowing Plan B to be offered over the counter to those 16 
     and older; younger teens would need a prescription.
       Barr officials seem willing to consider this restriction--
     if that's the only way to get EC to a wider number of women. 
     Commendably, the company seems prepared to submit another 
     application to the FDA.
       If the FDA continues to block easy access to EC--now sold 
     over the counter in 33 countries--it will be another example 
     of the Bush administration ignoring a scientific consensus 
     that conflicts with its political agenda.
       Bush has restricted contraception funding overseas, has 
     attempted to deny contraception coverage for federal 
     employees, has pumped money into abstinence-only sex 
     education programs that deny contraceptive information to 
     young people.
       Is it any wonder, then, that an FDA under his watch has 
     denied women easy access to a safe and very needed drug?
                                  ____


               [From the Houston Chronicle, May 10, 2004]

   The Morning After/FDA Contrived Excuse To Deny Women Contraception

       Last week, Food and Drug Administration officials decided 
     to reject over-the-counter sales of emergency contraception 
     medication known as morning-after pills. Their rejection 
     represents a missed opportunity to reduce unwanted 
     pregnancies and abortions. Worse still, the officials 
     contrived a ludicrous argument on which to base their 
     decision.
       Basically, the regulatory agency told women they could not 
     have convenient access to this proven, safe and reliable 
     method of preventing unwanted pregnancy because minor girls 
     might not be able to figure out how to use it.
       In denying Barr Pharmaceuticals' application to sell its 
     product in drugstores, the FDA ignored the recommendation of 
     its own advisory panel of physicians, who overwhelmingly 
     agreed last December that women could safely use the drug, 
     Plan B, to avoid pregnancy without a doctor's supervision.
       To get approval to sell the medicine without a 
     prescription, Barr now will have to come up with a way to 
     prevent juveniles under 16 from buying it or conduct new 
     studies to show that they can use it safely on their own.
       The FDA's position showed the agency is more inclined to 
     bend to political pressure than to meet women's health needs. 
     Regulators bowed to pressure from President Bush's re-
     election campaign and abortion opponents, who falsely liken 
     Plan B to abortion. Other moralists worry needlessly that, 
     despite the dearth of evidence, access to morning-after pills 
     will promote unsafe sex and promiscuity.
       In the first case, emergency contraception does not cause 
     the abortion of a fetus; taken up to 72 hours after 
     unprotected intercourse, it prevents the implantation of a 
     fertilized egg in the womb or disrupts ovulation to prevent 
     fertilization. It holds the potential to reduce the number of 
     abortions sought because women got pregnant as a result of 
     rape, birth control failure or simple unprotected sex.
       In the second case, the United States is saturated with 
     sexual come-ons. They are a staple of advertising, movies, 
     television, magazines, novels, billboards, adult book stores 
     and videos, the Internet, sports half-time shows and 
     telephone chat services. Respectable women hold sex toy 
     parties the way housewives of the last century got their 
     girlfriends together to buy plastic containers. Easy access 
     to the morning-after pill as an inducement to promiscuity 
     would be bringing coals to Newcastle.
       Incidentally, cigarettes are widely available in stores in 
     spite of being--in contrast to safe and effective morning-
     after pills--addictive, carcinogenic and without any 
     healthful function. It is illegal to sell cigarettes to 
     anyone under 18.
       Couldn't morning-after pills be safely sold to women 18 and 
     over, preventing countless unwanted pregnancies and 
     abortions?
                                  ____


          [From the Seattle-Post-Intelligencer, May 10, 2004]

                   Wrong To Limit Contraception Pill

       Women deserve easy access to emergency contraception pills. 
     The Food and Drug Administration has chosen to be an obstacle 
     to

[[Page H5605]]

     preventing pregnancies and reducing abortions.
       Politics rules. The Bush administration talks about 
     science, but acts on pseudoscience. In refusing to allow 
     emergency contraceptives to be sold over the counter, the FDA 
     rejected the overwhelming recommendation of its own 
     scientific advisory panel. The panel said tests, which 
     included girls under 16, had shown women can use the so-
     called morning-after pills safely and effectively without a 
     doctor's prescription.
       Pressured by President Bush's conservative supporters, 
     however, the FDA decided that not enough testing had been 
     done on young girls. The FDA professed concern about putting 
     a strong medicine on shelves within adolescents' reach. Has 
     the agency missed that kids can already buy off-the-shelf 
     medications, ranging from aspirin to Zantac? Of course not.
       The United States might benefit from Washington state's 
     system of making emergency contraception available without a 
     prescription but with counseling by a pharmacist. It 
     generally works well, although implementing it nationally 
     certainty would run risk that pharmacists might withhold the 
     pills in isolated areas.
       The pill's maker, Barr Pharmaceuticals, says it can 
     overcome FDS concerns, possibly within months. We hope so. 
     Women deserve help from medical science, not politically 
     induced evasions.
       P-I OPINION The American Academy of Pediatrics supported 
     making emergency contraception available over the counter. 
     Federal bureaucrats decided they knew better.
                                  ____


               [From the Los Angeles Times, May 8, 2004]

                       Politics of Contraception

       More than 70 of the nation's leading medical and public 
     health groups backed a proposal to let women buy emergency 
     contraception without a prescription.
       The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's own advisory panel, 
     after reviewing 40 studies and 15,000 pages of data, 
     overwhelming recommended over-the-counter status for the so-
     called morning-after pill.
       Use of this pill would cut the number of abortions in this 
     country--a goal President Bush ardently embraces--and 
     millions of women who have used it by prescription since 1999 
     have found this drug to be safe and effective in blocking 
     unwanted pregnancies.
       And yet it's an election year, and many of Bush's 
     supporters insist that broader availability of the pill would 
     encourage promiscuity and unsafe sex.
       So when FDA leaders overruled their own scientific advisors 
     to reject over-the-counter sales Thursday, politics once 
     again trumped science, despite their avowals to the contrary. 
     The decision echoes this administration's big-footing of 
     scientific evidence of stem cell research and environmentally 
     safe levels of mercury and arsenic.
       The agency has, however, left open a path that would let 
     women eventually obtain this drug more easily--after the 
     November election--and the pill's maker should pursue that 
     opportunity.
       In a letter to manufacturer Barr Laboratories, the FDA said 
     the company had failed to prove that girls younger than 16 
     could safely use the drug, which it markets as Plan B, 
     without guidance from a doctor or nurse. Until Barr can 
     satisfy the agency that Plan B is safe for teenagers or 
     present a plan for over-the-counter sales to older women and 
     more restricted sales to 14- to 16-year-olds, the FDA has 
     blocked all over-the-counter sales.
       Barr says it will pursue these options, but even if it acts 
     quickly, approval probably won't come for a year, long after 
     November's votes are counted.
       Emergency contraceptives contain a concentrated dose of the 
     hormones found in birth control pills. Taken within 72 hours 
     of unprotected sex, the pill prevents pregnancy by delaying 
     ovulation, blocking fertilization and inhibiting uterine 
     implantation. But the drug is more effective if it is taken 
     within 24 hours rather than 72 hours.
       That's why California and four other states permit 
     pharmacists to dispense it without a prescription if women 
     ask.
       But surveys show that few pharmacies in California stock 
     the pill and few women know to ask for it. Over-the-counter 
     sales would give far more women access to this drug, 
     especially on holidays and weekends. For now, however, FDA 
     leaders have left a lot of women in a difficult, and 
     unnecessary, spot.

  Mrs. MALONEY. I am sure that the majority of this body agrees, like 
the expert panel and the FDA staff, that American women deserve the 
most safe and effective contraceptives available. Supporting this 
amendment is a vote in support of healthy women and evidence-based 
science.
  A perfect example of inserting politics into science is the recent 
decision by the FDA to deny over-the-counter status to Plan B or the 
morning after pill. On December 16, 2003, a joint panel of the FDA's 
Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee and Nonprescription Drugs 
Advisory Committee voted 28 to 0 that Plan B could be safely sold as an 
over-the-counter medication. It then voted 23 to 4 to recommend that 
the FDA approve the application to make Plan B available over the 
counter. Yet on May 6, 2004, the FDA rejected over-the-counter status 
for Plan B.
  The Washington Post, dated June 18, 2004, reported that a top agency 
scientist dismissed the reasoning that was used to justify the 
rejection as unfounded.
  Officials at FDA wrote that Acting Center Director Stephen Galson was 
introducing a different standard for evaluating Plan B than the FDA had 
applied to other contraceptives.
  Politics and ideology have been allowed to influence science, 
endangering the reputation of the FDA and having a direct and 
irreversible effect on the health and well-being of thousands of women.
  The Maloney-Waxman amendment ensures that the FDA will not deprive 
American women of safe and effective contraceptives on ideological 
grounds. Accepting the Maloney-Waxman amendment is a vote in favor of 
safe and effective contraceptives for American women, a vote in favor 
of scientific, evidence-based science. A vote in favor of this 
amendment requires the FDA to spend money on doing their job and making 
decisions based on science, not politics, and I am very grateful that 
the majority is considering accepting this amendment.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I am 
not opposed to the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Bonilla) is recognized for 10 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that this amendment just says that 
if FDA determines a product is safe and effective for over-the-counter 
use, it should approve the application.
  I do not know why we should single out any particular product. Every 
product should have to meet a set standards to be sold without a 
prescription. But that is current law, and I do not object to the 
gentlewoman's amendment, based on the wording and what the amendment 
actually says.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  First, I want to thank my friend for clarifying that the pending 
amendment is simply a restatement of current law. I appreciate the fact 
that he has made that very clear.
  I want to make a point so that we are also clear about the FDA's 
decision concerning Plan B. Dr. Stephen Galson, the acting director for 
FDA's Center For Drug Evaluation and Research, stated in a letter that 
based on science and safety concerns, Plan B will not be sold over-the-
counter and this is his quote: ``Based on the review of the data, we 
have concluded that you (Barr Research Inc) have not provided adequate 
data to support a conclusion that Plan B can be used safely for young 
adolescent women.''
  He also goes on to point out that ``only 29 of the 585 subjects 
enrolled in the study were 14 to 16 years of age, and none were under 
the age of 14.'' So based on science and safety concerns, the 
recommendation was made that Plan B should not be approved for over-
the-counter sales.
  So this restatement of current law does not add nor detract from 
things as they are.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
  Earlier this year, the FDA denied an application to approve an 
emergency contraceptive, Plan B, for over-the-counter use. Yet the 
evidence suggests the FDA made the wrong decision. EC can reduce the 
risk of pregnancy by as much as 89 percent, which--in turn--reduces the 
number of abortions.
  It is estimated that greater use of EC could halve the number of 
unintended pregnancies. EC does not cause abortion.
  One of the goals of Healthy People 2010, a publication from the 
Office of the Surgeon General, is to increase the proportion of health 
care providers who provide EC to their patients.
  The American Medical Association and American College of 
Obstetricians and Gynecologists endorse greater access to EC, even

[[Page H5606]]

to the point of having dedicated emergency contraceptive products 
available without a prescription. Moreover, the FDA's own expert 
advisory panel reviewed the evidence and found Plan B to be effective 
and safe. The expert panel found Plan B to meet the requirements to 
receive over-the-counter status.
  So why are we here discussing this? Because this past spring the FDA 
put politics above sound policy. Karl Rove and his right wing agenda 
won again and the people who are going to suffer are the women of my 
district and the women throughout this country. By not approving the 
sale of emergency contraception, marketed as Plan B over the counter, 
countless women may find themselves struggling to adapt to unplanned 
pregnancies.
  The New York Times recently highlighted a young woman from the Bronx 
who is facing many of the issues that people in Washington like to talk 
about.
  Jasmine, born in the Bronx, is struggling to understand reproductive 
health issues in the context of her high school, her boyfriend, her 
family, and her life. The story goes on to describe very real efforts 
to make a relationship work with her boyfriend Alberto.
  Information is not always easy to come by. And good intentions are 
not always sufficient. But this young woman does not need rhetoric as 
she tried to navigate complex relationships, work, school, and her own 
health. She needs information and access to things like emergency 
contraception. Girls and women like her often find themselves torn 
between two choices--to have a baby, or to have an abortion.
  Why not provide them with another choice--the choice to use Emergency 
Contraception, available over the counter at local drug stores, to 
prevent the pregnancy in the first place.
  We have seen how in New York City alone, the availability of birth 
control and counseling at local high schools and targeted to young 
women has dramatically reduced the number of women having unintended 
pregnancies.
  Why is the FDA holding up something that makes common sense, 
something that any woman in America can use by calling their physician? 
This isn't about making emergency contraception legal, it already is. 
This is about making emergency contraception available.
  I urge an vote for the women of America. I urge an ``aye'' vote on 
the Maloney/Waxman amendment.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
Waxman/Maloney amendment. I am here today to speak on behalf of women's 
health and the integrity of the American regulatory process.
  As a nation, we rely on the FDA to make decisions based on clear 
scientific evidence that have the best interests of the community in 
mind. Unfortunately, recently, the FDA's decision not to allow 
Emergency Contraceptive Pills, Plan B, to be available over the counter 
went against the opinion of the independent expert panel and FDA staff. 
Additionally, over 70 organizations including the American Medical 
Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 
support over-the-counter access to Emergency Contraceptive Pills. We 
must reassure the American People, that the FDA's decisions are based 
in scientific evidence and made with their best interests in mind. 
American women must be able to trust the FDA to make the best decisions 
possible with respect to their health.
  Emergency Contraceptive Pills, Plan B, are too often associated with 
abortion. These pills do not abort a fetus. They prevent a pregnancy 
from occurring in exactly the same way as other methods of birth 
control do and are 95 percent effective if taken within 24 hours. 
Physicians and other experts have indicated, in fact, that the 
availability of these pills over the counter would lead to a 50 percent 
decrease in abortion and unintended pregnancies. This could lead to 
800,000 fewer abortions and 1.7 million fewer unintended pregnancies. 
This medicine could lead to a decrease in teen pregnancy. In Chicago 
alone, more than 7,500 babies are born to teen moms every year, 88 
percent of which are out of wedlock. The availability of Plan B over-
the-counter could decrease this by at least 50 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, unintended pregnancy is so closely linked to other 
critical social issues: child poverty, out-of-wedlock birth, a well-
trained and ready workforce and the encouragement of strong American 
families. We must do what we can do decrease the number of unintended 
pregnancies, and in the case of Emergency Contraceptive Pills we have 
the opportunity and the scientific backing.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment and urge all my 
colleagues to vote based on science and evidence and not politics.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. The 
issue before us is the process by which the FDA decides whether to make 
Plan B, a form of emergency contraception, available over the counter. 
Plan B has long been considered a safe and effective prescription 
method of emergency contraception. Earlier this year the FDA's expert 
advisory committee and its scientific staff both concluded that it was 
safe and effective for use over the counter, as have several other 
countries. It was therefore with grave concern that I learned that the 
FDA decided to reject the scientific recommendations of its staff and 
expert committee and refused to grant over-the-counter status for Plan 
B. Instead of science, the over-riding basis for the FDA's decision 
appeared to be the Bush administration's desire to cater to its right-
wing base in an election year.
  The FDA has a long and respected tradition of making decisions on the 
basis of science. FDA's drug approval process is admired and emulated 
around the world for this very reason: its decisions have always been 
based on the best available evidence. America's health and the 
industries the FDA regulates have thrived under this system.
  I am concerned not only because improperly withholding emergency 
contraception will result in countless unnecessary abortions and 
unwanted pregnancies. I am concerned because public health agencies 
like the FDA run tremendous risks when they allow an ideological agenda 
to subvert science. They run those risks with their own credibility, 
with the credibility of the products they regulate, and ultimately with 
the lives of the American people. An FDA motivated by politics instead 
of science is bad for America's health.
  The Bush administration has repeatedly shown its willingness to 
distort science to suit political ends, from suppressing the science on 
global warming, to censoring websites about sex education, to 
appointing unqualified individuals with lead industry ties to expert 
advisory committees on lead poisoning of children. Let's send them a 
strong message today: decisions as important to the public health as 
the availability of emergency contraception must be based on science, 
not ideology. Anything less is unacceptable.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Maloney amendment 
to H.R. 4766.
  If the FDA finds a drug to be safe and effective for over-the-counter 
use, it should not go on to withhold the drug from over-the-counter use 
for any other reason. Not for political reasons. Not for ideological 
reasons.
  This amendment states that once a determination of safety and 
effectiveness is made, the FDA can't deny a product's approval for 
over-the-counter status for reasons other than safety and 
effectiveness.
  On May 6, the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, turned down Barr 
Laboratories' application for Plan B emergency contraception to be 
distributed over the counter.
  I was disappointed the FDA went against the advice of the FDA's own 
expert panel, which in December recommended unrestricted over-the-
counter access by a vote of 23 to 4.
  A drug is considered acceptable for over-the-counter status if it has 
low-toxicity, has no potential for overdose or addiction, isn't harmful 
to an existing pregnancy, does not require medical screening, is self-
identifiable, has a uniform dosage and if there are no important drug 
interactions. Emergency Contraception, EC, was found to meet every 
single criterion.
  That is why, along with 40 of my colleagues, including the gentlelady 
from New York, I sent a letter to the Acting Commissioner of the FDA, 
Dr. Lester Crawford, asking him to reconsider the determination on the 
status of the application to make Emergency Contraception available 
over the counter.
  We have not yet received a response.
  The FDA should only make decisions based on science, not politics and 
ideology. The decision was made despite the significant need for access 
to emergency contraception.
  The fact is, our children are having children. Approximately 82 
percent of teen pregnancies are unintended and more than half of these 
end in abortion.
  Expanded access to emergency contraception will decrease the risk of 
unintended pregnancy and decrease the number of abortions.
  I would like to see abortion remain safe and legal, yet rare, which 
is why I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

  Amendment offered by Mr. Obey:
       Add at the end (before the short title), the following new 
     section:
       Sec.   . None of the funds made available to the Department 
     of Agriculture by this Act may be used to acquire new 
     information

[[Page H5607]]

     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: Provided further, That the report 
     described in the second proviso under the heading ``OFFICE OF 
     THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER'' shall also be submitted to the 
     Committee on Government Reform of the House of 
     Representatives.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, we have not seen the amendment, so at this 
time I reserve a point of order.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Earlier in the day we had a dispute erupt between the authorizing 
committee and the Committee on Appropriations with respect to one 
language provision in this bill from last year's bill. Subsequent to 
that, we had another dispute manifest itself with respect to new 
language in this bill. As a result of that altercation, we had two 
sections of the bill which were stricken on points of order.
  After that occurred, I discussed the episode with the gentleman from 
Virginia, the chairman of the subcommittee from the authorizing 
committee, which had objected to our committee's initial actions. The 
gentleman told me that what he was trying to get at was simply to make 
certain that in the provision that was carried in last year's bill that 
the authorizing committee would also receive notice before the agency 
could proceed to outsource or to contract for certain jobs outside of 
the agency itself.
  This amendment is simply an effort to reinstate the language as I 
understand the gentleman from Virginia wanted it, and to also insert 
the language originally inserted in this bill by the Committee on 
Appropriations which would prevent the agency from transferring certain 
funds that the committee had indicated should not be transferred.
  This is a simple effort on the part of one Member of the minority 
party to defend the institutional prerogatives of the Congress. And if 
the majority wants to accept it, that is fine with me. If they do not 
want to accept it, I could not care less.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition; however, I 
want to emphasize that the amendment that the gentleman from Wisconsin 
is offering today has been reviewed and cleared, and I am prepared to 
move on and accept it. So I withdraw the point of order earlier raised.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, although I 
am not sure it is at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman submit his amendment to the desk.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I think they are bringing it, but I am not 
sure of the status.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, as we have not had a chance to review this 
amendment, I would like to reserve a point of order on this amendment.
  Mr. BAIRD. And my understanding is that it may be ruled out of order; 
but if I may, I would like to speak to it, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman must submit his amendment to the desk in 
order for it to be considered. Does the gentleman have an amendment?
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I think it is being brought to the floor. If 
I might ask the gentleman if we could bring it back up in a few 
moments, I would appreciate it. My understanding was it had been 
submitted. Apparently, somehow, it did not get here.
  The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman from Washington would offer an 
amendment, the Clerk would designate it and consideration would proceed 
under the order of the House.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would inform the gentleman that, to our knowledge, 
this is the last amendment; and we are a little bit stumped as to why 
we would not have a copy of the amendment here. We are concluding a 
major appropriation bill.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONILLA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington to discuss this 
issue.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. It 
was my understanding the amendment was here, and I apologize for the 
confusion.
  Mr. Chairman, it was my intent to withdraw the amendment, but I 
wanted to rise today to discuss a program fraught with waste. It was 
created with noble intentions but is poorly constructed and 
implemented, and as a result has facilitated, I think, abuse of an 
otherwise well-intentioned program. I am referring to the Livestock 
Compensation Program, which provides Federal funds to compensate 
livestock producers for financial losses stemming from natural 
disasters.
  I strongly support the intentions of the LCP, and I applaud the 
Secretary of Agriculture for creating the program. However, when it was 
created in 2002, it was designed to provide payments to compensate for 
drought damages, and then Congress expanded the program in 2003 to 
provide payments for all natural disasters.
  Congress only authorized the program until 2003; and, consequently, 
the LCP is currently dormant. However, we can be assured that the 
Secretary and Congress would likely be pressured to reauthorize the 
program during the next significant disaster, which is, unfortunately, 
an inevitability.
  While I support the intentions of the LCP, the authorizing 
legislation and accompanying regulations contained a massive loophole. 
Essentially, it was this: the LCP did not require eligible parties to 
demonstrate any actual loss to receive Federal assistance. As a 
consequence, ranchers who resided in regions affected by natural 
disasters, but whose property was completely unaffected, were able to 
march down to the local FSA, provide documentation simply that they 
owned livestock, and receive a check for as much as $40,000. They did 
not have to demonstrate that their farm or ranch had been harmed; 
neither did they have to demonstrate that their livestock had been 
harmed. Apparently, FSA simply wrote checks without asking the 
relatively simple question: What sort of damages did you sustain?
  To this day, we have no idea how much money was wasted because the 
government failed to ask this question. We do know, however, that the 
program distributed a total of $1.1 billion, including $234 million for 
disasters other than drought.
  We asked the USDA Inspector General to investigate the program; and, 
indeed, they suggested it was in need of reform. That is why I am 
calling this to the attention of this committee. I believe we ought to 
address this.
  My understanding is that the amendment was likely to be ruled out of 
order, and I do have now available a copy of the amendment, so that I 
would have had to withdraw it. But I would ask this committee to 
consider this. This is a program that may have been well intentioned, 
but has been abused. If it is extended further, we need to make sure 
that money only goes to people who have suffered livestock loss.
  We talk a lot about waste, fraud, and abuse in this Congress. Here is 
a clear-cut case of waste. I do not think it is intentional fraud, but 
it is clearly waste and possibly abuse, and so I think we should 
address it.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his indulgence, and I submit 
for the Record a copy of the amendment I had intended to offer.

 Amendment to H.R. 4766, As Reported Offered by Mr. Baird of Washington

       Page 79, after line 16, insert the following (and make such 
     technical and conforming changes as may be appropriate):
       Sec. 759. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     used to make payments pursuant to the Livestock Compensation 
     Program to persons who do not incur a financial loss 
     resulting from the natural disaster with respect to which 
     such payments are otherwise available.


[[Page H5608]]


  Mr. BONILLA. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for his comments; and in closing, I would just urge all Members on the 
upcoming votes on the three amendments to vote ``no,'' and ``yes'' on 
final passage.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed in the following order: the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Baca), amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), amendment No. 7 offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), and the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Baca

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 205, 
noes 209, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 366]

                               AYES--205

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burns
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--209

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boucher
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Bereuter
     Carson (IN)
     Cole
     Collins
     Deutsch
     Gutknecht
     Houghton
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jones (OH)
     Kleczka
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     Majette
     Saxton
     Stark
     Vitter
     Woolsey


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Quinn) (during the vote). Members are 
advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1808

  Mr. BERRY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Tancredo

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Tancredo) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 156, 
noes 262, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 367]

                               AYES--156

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Kolbe
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Norwood

[[Page H5609]]


     Ose
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--262

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barton (TX)
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burr
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cole
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Bereuter
     Carson (IN)
     Collins
     Deutsch
     Gutknecht
     Houghton
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jones (OH)
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     Majette
     Saxton
     Vitter


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there 
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1816

  Mr. BOYD changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Chabot

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Chabot) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 72, 
noes 347, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 368]

                                AYES--72

     Andrews
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Berkley
     Bradley (NH)
     Brown (OH)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Cox
     Culberson
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hyde
     King (IA)
     Kirk
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McInnis
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Portman
     Ramstad
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Tancredo
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Van Hollen
     Wamp
     Waxman
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--347

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burns
     Burr
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gephardt
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)

[[Page H5610]]


     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bereuter
     Carson (IN)
     Collins
     Deutsch
     Gutknecht
     Houghton
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     Majette
     Saxton
     Vitter


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). The Chair reminds Members there are 2 
minutes left in this vote.

                              {time}  1825

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. WAXMAN and Mrs. DAVIS of California 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  Mr. KUCINICH changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Kaptur

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 206, 
noes 213, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 369]

                               AYES--206

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--213

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Issa
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bereuter
     Carson (IN)
     Collins
     Deutsch
     Gutknecht
     Houghton
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     Majette
     Saxton
     Vitter


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 2 
minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1833

  Mr. BASS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I was not present for debate on the 
Legislative Branch Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2005--H.R. 4755--
rollcall vote 359, amendment offered by Holt to establish a Center for 
Science and Technology Assessment; rollcall vote 360, amendment offered 
by Hefley to provide a 1 percent reduction in discretionary funding; 
rollcall vote 361, a motion to recommit; rollcall vote 362, final 
passage of H.R. 4755.
  Additionally, I was not present for debate on these amendments to the 
Agricultural Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2005--H.R. 4766--rollcall 
vote 363, an amendment offered by Hooley; rollcall vote 364, an 
amendment offered by Weiner; rollcall vote 365, a motion to close the 
DOD conference; rollcall vote 366, an amendment offered by Baca; 
rollcall vote 367, an amendment offered by Tancredo; rollcall vote 368, 
an amendment offered by Chabot; and rollcall vote 369, an amendment 
offered by Kaptur.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' for rollcall votes 
360, 362, 363, 365, and 367.
  I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall votes 359, 361, 364, 366, 368, 
and 369.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, this will not take a great deal of time. I yield to the 
very distinguished 12-year Member of this institution, the gentleman 
from Chicago, Illinois (Mr. Rush) for a very brief colloquy.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I 
rise to enter into a colloquy with my dear colleague, the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Madam Ranking Member, due to the issues of education, migration, and 
disinformation, many African Americans have lost real property once in 
their possession or in the possession of their families because of 
fraudulent

[[Page H5611]]

practices by dishonest and unscrupulous people. As my colleague knows, 
many African American families migrated to the North and left their 
land behind with the understanding that they still retained ownership 
to their property. However, what occurred and what is still occurring 
is a blatant land grab among some in the South, thereby robbing many 
African American families of their ownership rights.
  Madam Ranking Member, today, African Americans residing inside and 
outside of Southern States may still have legal claims to these lands. 
There is a group of law students who are working on a program called 
ROSA, Reclaiming Ownership of Southern Assets, that is helping African 
American families reclaim their stolen land. And Madam Ranking Member, 
I sincerely hope that the Federal Government can also join in this 
effort to help right a wrong.
  It is for this reason that I would respectfully request that the 
Office of Civil Rights within the Department of Agriculture research 
this issue and provide technical assistance to these families who have 
been illegally deprived of their property. This is an urgent matter. It 
is a very, very important matter; and I respectfully ask that the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) take this issue to the conference 
committee and champion this cause along with the law students who are 
involved in this program called ROSA, Reclaiming Ownership of Southern 
Assets.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank my 
distinguished colleague from Chicago, Illinois and all of the Members 
at the end of a very long day for having the courtesy to listen to him 
and these serious concerns. We certainly will take this to conference, 
and we will not forget that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush) was 
the one who reminded us to do it.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make the point that 
under the current law, there are no limits for government price support 
payments to farmers using commodity certificates.
  If commodity certificates and loan forfeitures would have been 
included under the payment cap limit like in the Senate version of the 
2002 farm bill, the CBO has estimated we would save $118 million in FY 
05 alone--$118 million--that could be used for some other very worthy 
initiatives in this agriculture appropriation bill or larger supports 
for family farmers.
  We all have heard the news reports about large corporate farms 
receiving millions of dollars in government payments through the use of 
generic commodity certificates. Generic certificates do not benefit 
average family farmers but allow the largest farmers to receive 
unlimited payments. It is not good public relations for agriculture or 
our next farm bill.
  Under our current system, when the $75,000 limit is reached, 
producers can continue to receive unlimited price support benefits 
through loan forfeitures and generic commodity certificates. Generic 
commodity certificates are in practice the same thing as marketing loan 
gains, yet they are not included under the payment limitations.
  Thus, generic commodity certificates are essentially loopholes 
allowing large farming operations to exceed the payment limits. Should 
it be the objective of federal farm policy to provide virtually 
unlimited price support to large farming operations?
  To add insult to injury, in a May 2003 article published in Tax 
Notes, it shows that gains from commodity certificates are not reported 
to the Internal Revenue Service.
  Reading some of the comments following the USDA's Payment Limit 
Commission Report from last fall, it seems important to stress the fact 
that a few large farmers utilizing generic commodity certificates are 
avoiding payment limits.
  While the Commission indicated that no changes should be made to 
payment limits until the next farm bill, we need to seriously consider 
where our agricultural appropriations money is going. Should the 
Federal Government be paying over 50 percent of the gross income for 
certain commodities?
  It is often argued that cooperatives need to use these commodity 
certificates as a marketing tool and that the money is spread over 
numerous producers. This argument dodges the real issue, however, that 
generic certificates provide a loophole for large producers in the 
cooperatives to collect unlimited dollars in federal subsidies above 
and beyond the so-called payment limits.
  Even within such co-ops, individual farm production records can be 
used to enforce compliance if this loophole were closed. As you may 
know a majority of the Senate and the House voted to instruct conferees 
to have ``real'' payment limits. Unfortunately, the conferees did not 
follow through. The next farm bill is at risk of overly severe limits 
if continued abuse is evident.

  The CBO projected savings of $118 million for FY05 and nearly a half 
billion dollars during the 5 years of our current farm bill.
  That money could be used to fund the National Research Initiative, 
NRI, which is a national grant-based agricultural research program for 
our public and private scientists. The NRI was authorized in 1994 at 
$500 million per year, but has received less than $200 million every 
year since its inception. This kind of research can allow our farmers 
to be more productive and efficient, being less dependent on Federal 
farm programs.
  The NRI has provided the agriculture community with valuable research 
such as sequencing the rice genome, disease resistance in soybeans, and 
improved management practices for livestock and crop producers.
  Supporters of payment limits argue that large or unlimited payments 
benefit large farms, facilitate consolidation into larger units, raise 
the price of land, and put smaller, family-sized, or beginning farming 
operations at a competitive disadvantage.
  Critics of payment limits counter that all farms are in need of 
support, especially when market prices decline, and that larger farms 
should not be penalized for the economies of size they have achieved.
  Although the effect of payment limits can vary, affected farms are 
usually relatively large. Cotton and rice farms are affected more 
frequently because they tend to be larger and their subsidy value per 
acre is relatively high. Cotton and rice farms are also the largest 
users of commodity certificates in the marketing loan program, an 
important fact for payment limits.
  Under the 2002 farm bill, producers receive three types of commodity 
payments that are subject to limits: direct payments, counter-cyclical 
payment, and marketing loan payments. With respect to payment limits, 
direct and counter-cyclical payments are relatively straightforward 
since they are direct transfers made in cash. Marketing loans, however, 
are more complicated.
  The marketing loan program has four mechanisms to provide benefits 
when market prices are below loan rates: (1) loan deficiency payment 
(LDP)--a direct payment instead of a loan; (2) marketing loan gain 
(MLG)--repaying a loan at a lower market price (posted county price, or 
average world price for cotton or rice); (3) ``commodity 
certificates''--purchased at the posted county price to repay the loan; 
similar to a MLG but without payment limits; and (4) forfeiting the 
collateral (commodity) and keeping the cash.
  The 2002 farm bill retains annual limits on selected commodity 
program payments. It creates a prohibition on payments to persons or 
entities with adjusted gross income exceeding $2.5 million--unless 75 
percent or more comes from farming.
  The annual limit per person is $40,000 for direct payments, $65,000 
for counter-cyclical payments, and $75,000 for marketing loan gains and 
loan deficiency payments. However, because commodity certificates and 
forfeiture of commodities are not subject to any limits, the limit on 
MLGs and LDPs simply becomes the point at which the farmer shifts to 
commodity certificates. So, as a practical matter, the marketing loan 
program is not limited.
  Mr. Chairman, again I want to reiterate the pro-farmer, practical 
need to close the payment limit loophole. Without putting constraints 
on the benefits earned through marketing certificates and loan 
forfeitures, the annual per person payment limit on the marketing loan 
program is not a true limit on federal payments to large farmers with 
budgets that must be restrained the challenge of writing the next farm 
bill that will keep American agriculture strong will be a huge task.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, while H.R. 4766, the fiscal year 2005 
Agriculture Appropriations bill, is far from perfect, I vote in support 
of this bill that contains key programs for Oregon and important 
amendments that made this a better bill.
  I am pleased that my amendment to designate $1.2 million of the funds 
within the Office of Inspector General to be used to enforce animal 
fighting laws passed, reflecting Congress' continuing attention to the 
inhumane, cruel, and economically devastating problem of animal 
fighting. I was also pleased to see the passage of Representative 
Hooley's amendment that increases funding for programs to eradicate 
Sudden Oak Death, a serious plant disease that threatens a nursery 
industry responsible for $700 million of annual production in Oregon 
and $14 billion nationally.
  I am disappointed to see the failure of an amendment offered by 
Ranking Member Kaptur that would increase funding for Farmers Markets. 
I would hope the committee can work to improve funding for these 
programs that connect local farmers with their communities. I am also 
deeply dissatisfied in the funding levels for conservation programs 
that were a key component to the passage of the 2002 farm bill. 
Continual funding cuts to these programs have shown that these 
commitments

[[Page H5612]]

were, in actuality, empty promises. I will continue to work to 
strengthen funding for these programs that help farmers, and improve 
the environment and our communities.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 
4766, the Agriculture Appropriations Act for FY2005.
  Agriculture is vital to not only the local economy in my home State 
of Louisiana but also to the culture and to way of life of many 
communities. Ag industries give Louisiana billions of dollars in 
economic impact and provide for hundreds of thousands of jobs. This 
bill funds many of the important programs and research that will help 
keep Louisiana's and our Nation's Ag sector profitable and vibrant.
  This bill will fund a number of specific items of benefit to 
Louisiana. I am pleased that these important items were included by the 
Appropriations Committee, and, as a member of the committee, I will 
continue to push for these important items to be included as we go to 
conference with the Senate.
  Some of these items include provisions to help solve specific needs 
in Louisiana, such as dairy waste remediation and an unexplained 
disease in rice crops. To help the sugar industry, there is funding to 
upgrade a sugar research station in southeast Louisiana.
  The bill also provides for a number of research initiatives, such as 
ongoing work to solve the Formosan termite infestation in Louisiana and 
important research funding that will benefit many of the different 
industries--from aquaculture to forestry, and many others--across the 
State.
  Also, this bill funds many different rural development programs and 
includes provisions to provide for needs in a number of communities 
across Louisiana that can use rural development assistance to solve 
waste water problems, make improvements on drinking water systems, deal 
with storm runoff, and other needs.
  Finally, there are provisions that direct the FDA to continue efforts 
to benefit Louisiana's seafood industry. Particularly, funding 
continues for the FDA to educate Americans on oyster consumption. And, 
to help deal with shrimp imports that contain chemicals harmful to 
humans, language has been included directing the FDA to test more 
shrimp to catch these chemicals so that . . .
  These are just a few examples of how this bill will benefit Louisiana 
and our Nation. I thank Chairman Bonilla for crafting such a good bill, 
and I urge all members to support it.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4766.
  Mr. Chairman, once again the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee have done an excellent job 
under very tight constraints. The bill is well balanced and will allow 
the Agriculture Department, the CFTC, and other related agencies to 
carry out their various important functions.
  Mr. Chairman, the cap on this bill binds very tightly. It represents 
a near hard freeze and, as a result, the Appropriations Committee had 
to cut into mandatory funding.
  I was very proud of the work that the Agriculture Committee and this 
House did in developing the 2002 farm bill, and for me it was a great 
honor to be involved in its development. In a very forward-looking way, 
it addressed farm income, but it also made substantial investments in 
research, so that American agricultural technology can continue to lead 
the world; in conservation, so that our natural resources will continue 
to be available for generations to come; in rural development, so that 
our rural areas could make technology improvements and provide basic 
services; and in preserving our nutrition programs that protect the 
needy.
  But because of this Congress' failure to take a similar, forward-
looking approach to government debt, this appropriations bill cuts the 
funding for the reforms and investments that were so strongly supported 
in this House. The FY 2004 Agriculture Appropriations bill made 
substantial cuts in farm bill programs of over $650 million, and this 
year's bill goes farther still to the tune of $1.26 billion.

  I find it somewhat disingenuous for the leadership of this House to 
profess their commitment to agriculture and the progress made in the 
farm bill--even leading members of their own party to believe that the 
farm bill will not be opened--and then attacking the farm bill in this 
back door approach. Whether we open the farm bill and cut agriculture 
because of reconciliation instructions or because of appropriations 
constraints, the end result still takes us to the same place--breaking 
our commitments to farmers and ranchers, to our commitments to 
conservation of our environment and protection of wildlife, and to the 
improvement of our rural economy. What is even a bigger shame is the 
fact that when you slowly dismantle the farm bill in this fashion, 
without the benefit of an overarching budget agreement, you still don't 
achieve a lower deficit/balanced budget.
  I have said before and I repeat it again, agriculture is always 
willing to do its fair share for fiscal sanity. However, when we willy-
nilly cut agriculture without regard to a bigger plan I have severe 
reservations.
  Mr. Chairman, you can't blame the Appropriations Committee for this 
condition. They have worked on a bipartisan basis to provide the best 
bill possible in a bad situation. Amazingly, we are considering this 
bill without the benefit of even having a budget in place; our deficit 
in May reached $347 billion--well on its way to $500 billion before the 
current fiscal year ends.
  But in order to meet the cap, this bill cuts these mandatory farm 
bill programs: Key research in the Initiative for Future Agriculture 
and Food Systems; small watershed rehabilitation; the Rural Strategic 
Investment Program; rural broadband and local rural television 
initiatives; funding for rural firefighters; the Wetlands Reserve 
Program; the EQIP program; the Conservation Security Program; the 
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program; the Farmland Protection Program; 
and the Renewable Energy Systems Program.

  Mr. Chairman, the farm bill--which was developed in a very inclusive 
and bipartisan manner--has been working very well. But our current 
fiscal policies--which are being developed without that kind of 
commonsense bipartisanship--are causing the piece-by-piece dismantling 
of the farm bill. I hope that the leaders of this House will soon reach 
across the aisle so that we can work together toward a common solution.
  Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, the U.S. Forest Service grounded 33 
of their heavy airtankers that were used to support firefighting 
program. Although a few of these planes have been cleared for service 
in this fire season, we must work to develop long-term plans for the 
U.S. Forest Services' aerial firefighting program. I would like to work 
with the members of the Appropriations Committee in the future to help 
fund research and development of adequate aircraft to support our 
country's forest firefighting program.
  Mr. Chairman, once again I commend Appropriations Committee members 
on both sides for their work on this important bill and I urge my 
colleagues to support its passage.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on H.R. 4766, the 
Agricultural Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2005.
  H.R. 4766 provides $16.8 billion in budget authority and $18.0 
annually in outlays--a decrease of $875 million in BA and $181 million 
in outlays from fiscal year 2004.
  As chairman of the House Budget Committee, I am pleased to report 
that the bill is consistent with the conference report on the 
Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2005--H. Con. Res. 
95--which recently passed the full House but has yet to pass the 
Senate. The bill comes in at its 302(b) allocation for fiscal year 2005 
and therefore complies with section 302(f) of the budget resolution, 
which limits appropriations measures to the allocation of the reporting 
subcommittee.
  H.R. 4766 continues the practice on Agriculture Appropriations bills 
of changing mandatory programs to generate savings to offset 
discretionary spending. This year's bill contains nearly $1.3 billion 
in such changes to mandatory programs under the subcommittee's 
jurisdiction.
  Let me conclude by commending Chairman Bonilla and Ranking Member 
Kaptur for a job well done in prioritizing the programs within their 
jurisdiction and coming to the floor with a bill that complies with 
this year's budget resolution.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to revise and extend my remarks. I 
would like to thank the chairwoman for her leadership today.
  Madam Chairwoman, due to issues of education, migration and 
disinformation, many African Americans have lost real property once in 
their possession or in the possession of their families because of 
fraudulent practices by dishonest and unscrupulous people. As you know, 
many African-American families migrated to the North and left their 
land behind with the understanding that they still retained ownership 
to their property. However, what occurred and what is still occurring 
is a blatant ``land grab'' among some in the southern States thereby 
robbing many African-American families of their ownership rights.
  Madam Chairwoman, today African-Americans residing inside and outside 
of southern States may still have legal claims to these lands. There is 
a group of law students who are working on a program called ROSA 
(reclaiming ownership of southern assets) that is helping African-
American families reclaim their stolen land. I hope that the Federal 
Government can also join in their effort to help right a wrong.
  It is for this reason that I would like to respectfully request that 
the Office of Civil Rights within the Department of Agriculture 
research this issue and provide technical assistance to these families 
that have been illegally deprived of their property.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I will not offer an amendment today with 
respect to the Food and Drug Administration, but I do want to put

[[Page H5613]]

on the record my disappointment with the agency with respect to issues 
of concern to the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and 
Human Resources, which I chair.
  The first matter concerns the reluctance of the FDA to exercise its 
responsibilities to protect the health of Americans from specious 
medical claims made about marijuana. In recent years, a large and well-
funded pro-drug movement has succeeded in convincing many Americans 
that marijuana is a true ``medicine,'' to be used in treating a wide 
variety of illnesses. Unable to change the federal laws, however, these 
pro-drug activists turned to the state referendum process, and 
succeeded in passing a number of ``medical marijuana'' initiatives. 
This has set up a direct conflict between federal and state law on 
whether or not smoked marijuana is ``medicine.''
  State laws purporting to legalize marijuana for medical purposes 
bypass these important safeguards. California and Oregon have adopted 
the most wide-reaching such laws. They allow anyone to use, possess, 
and even grow his own marijuana, provided he obtains the written 
``recommendation'' of a doctor. Few, if any, restrictions are placed on 
what conditions marijuana may be used to treat; virtually no 
restrictions are placed on the content, potency or purity of such 
``medical'' marijuana.
  The laws adopted in California, Oregon, and other States are 
extremely open-ended; California law even allows marijuana to be used 
for migraine headaches. This has led to a number of uses of marijuana 
as ``medicine'' that I believe to be highly questionable. For example, 
Dr. Phillip Leveque, has personally written recommendations for over 
4,000 people to use marijuana, many of whom he never met. A witness who 
testified before my Subcommittee, Dr. Claudia Jensen, has recommended 
that teenagers use marijuana for the treatment of psychiatric 
conditions like attention deficit disorder (ADD). We do not allow 
patients to grow their own opium poppies to make painkillers like 
morphine, Oxycontin and even heroin with just a ``doctor's 
recommendation.'' We do not allow people to manufacture their own 
psychiatric drugs like Prozac or Xanax to treat headaches.
  Why, then, should we authorize people to ``grow their own'' 
marijuana, when the potential for abuse is high and there is little or 
no scientific evidence that it can actually treat all of these 
illnesses and conditions? Why should we abandon the regulatory process 
that ensures that drugs are manufactured at the right potency level and 
contaminant-free? Why should we stop the oversight that makes sure that 
drugs are being administered in the right dosage and in the safest 
manner? Where has the FDA been in the debate on medical claims 
concerning an unapproved drug? It is absent from the debate, deferring 
to other law enforcement agencies. Why? The debate that is taking place 
concerns FDA's core competency: is smoked marijuana medicine or not? 
FDA's feeble response to this direct challenge to its authority is to 
provide a link to the National Institute on Drug Abuse on its website.

  ``Medical'' marijuana referenda are a direct assault on nearly a 
century of food and drug law, and FDA needs to rise to its own defense. 
I ask unanimous consent that a letter to President Bush from Arthur T. 
Dean, Chairman and CEO of the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of 
America, be inserted in the record concerning this important point.
  While FDA is almost negligent with respect to marijuana, it is nearly 
usurpatory with respect to on-site drug testing. Once again, the FDA is 
seeking to impose overly restrictive guidance on the manufacturers and 
consumers of on-site drug tests, an ill-conceived effort that runs 
directly counter to the President's initiative to increase the 
availability of student drug testing.
  Many schools also use these tests to deter student drug use. In his 
State of the Union Address, President Bush stated that student drug 
testing is an effective deterrent to drug use. Hunterdon Central High 
School in New Jersey is a model school that has used on-site drug and 
alcohol tests for over six years without problems. The New Jersey 
Supreme Court has upheld the program. The FDA's regulation of on-site 
tests will make them expensive and difficult to use and may cause 
Hunterdon and other schools to forgo the use of this valuable tool to 
deter drug use from our children.
  The FDA has proposed requiring an expensive and repetitive approval 
process for the testing kits and has proposed requiring onerous 
training and other requirements. One of the key studies cited by FDA as 
supporting the rationale behind promulgating its proposed guidance has 
been misinterpreted and has not been peer-reviewed. I urge the FDA to 
reconsider this proposal in light of its damaging effect on the Bush 
administration's priorities for protecting the health and safety of 
young people.
  Additionally, I am concerned that FDA is not using the best and 
latest science to alert consumers to the risks in using products 
regulated by the agency. For example, studies have consistently 
demonstrated that condom use doe not provide effective protection 
against infection with human papillomavarius (HPV). HPV is a sexually 
transmitted disease that causes nearly all cervical cancers. By way of 
comparison, nearly the same number of American women dies every year as 
a result of HPV/cervical cancer as do of HIV/AIDS. Despite these facts, 
FDA-approved condom labels have erroneously stated that condoms provide 
effective protection against STDs, and some condom companies have even 
claimed that condoms protect against HPV. In December 2000, President 
Bill Clinton signed Public Law 106-554 requiring the FDA to ``reexamine 
existing condom labels . . . to determine whether the labels are 
medically accurate regarding the overall effectiveness or lack of 
effectiveness of condoms in preventing sexually transmitted diseases, 
including HPV.'' Four years later, FDA has yet to comply with this 
legal requirement by relabeling condoms to be medically accurate. FDA 
assured me at a hearing held in March that the agency would issue new 
recommendations before the end of this year.
  Lastly, studies have also long demonstrated that use of the 
spermicide Nonoxynol-9 (N-9) increases risk for HIV infection. Yet the 
FDA, as recently as last year, stated on its website that ``some 
experts believe nonoxynol-9 may kill the aids virus during intercourse, 
too. So you might want to use a spermicide along with a latex condom as 
an added precaution.'' FDA did publish a proposed rule requiring 
warnings for OTC vaginal contraceptives containing N-9 on January 16, 
2003. This rule does not, however, apply to other products containing 
N-9 and the agency is still weighing whether or not to require consumer 
alerts on condoms containing N-9.
  The House Government Reform Committee on February 26 voted to approve 
``Views and Estimates on the Fiscal Year 2005 Budget of the United 
States'' without dissent. This document urges the FDA to take action to 
alert consumers of the dangers posed by so-called ``medicinal'' 
marijuana, HPV and N-9. The American people are still waiting.

                                               Community Anti-Drug


                                        Coalitions of America,

                                      Alexandria, VA, May 7, 2004.
     President George W. Bush,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: On behalf of the 5,000 coalition 
     members that Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America 
     (CADCA) represents, I am writing to strongly urge you to 
     instruct the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to issue 
     warning letters to all states, local governments, medical 
     boards, website operators and sellers of marijuana explaining 
     that the FDA has not approved botanical marijuana for 
     ``medicinal use'' and that it cannot be advertised as such. 
     Furthermore, I respectfully request that you direct the FDA 
     to take action against entities that continue to falsely 
     advertise marijuana as medicine with appropriate penalties.
       It has recently come to my attention that the FDA has 
     issued a multitude of warning letters to websites over: (1) 
     weight loss claims, (2) the relationship between walnuts and 
     the risk of heart disease, and (3) the potential risk of 
     ultrasound `keep-sake' images. Many, if not most of these 
     claims, are based on little or no conclusive, scientific 
     evidence. Mel Stratmeyer, Ph.D., in the FDA's Office of 
     Science and Technology was quoted in an article related to 
     the ultrasounds as saying, ``. . . if there's even a 
     possibility of potential risk, why take the chance.''
       If the FDA uses the standard of ``possibility of potential 
     risk,'' don't Americans also deserve to be protected from the 
     demonstrably false claims being made about ``medical 
     marijuana.'' The public relies upon the FDA to advise them on 
     medicine, based on sound medical evidence. To date, the FDA 
     has not approved nor has it found any medicinal value in 
     botanical marijuana, which is why it remains a Schedule I 
     controlled substances. Despite this fact, websites, state and 
     local governments, private vendors and doctors continue to 
     advertise and endorse the medicinal value of smoked 
     marijuana.
       Marijuana is not a harmless drug: it is the most widely 
     abused illicit drug in the nation. According to the Substance 
     Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's Treatment 
     Episode Data Set, approximately 60% of adolescent treatment 
     cases in 2001 were for marijuana abuse. Research shows that 
     the decline in the use of any illegal drug is directly 
     related to its perception of harm or risk by the user. 
     Advertising smoked marijuana as medicine sends the wrong 
     message to America's youth--that marijuana is not dangerous. 
     The effort of the drug legalization movement, to promote 
     ``medical marijuana'' to the pubic severely dilutes the 
     prevention messages that community anti-drug coalitions 
     across America are trying so hard to communicate: marijuana 
     is dangerous and has serious consequences.
       An April 2nd story in Reuters Health (``FDA Warns 16 
     Websites Over Weight Loss Claims) shows that the FDA is 
     issuing warnings in these cases based on ``false and 
     misleading claims'' that may have significant heath 
     consequences to the public. These same kind of claims are 
     being made regarding ``medical marijuana.'' Doctors and

[[Page H5614]]

     websites are giving false hope to patients by telling them 
     that marijuana will help them, without warning these patients 
     of the potentially serious side effects of smoking marijuana. 
     At a hearing before the House Government Reform Subcommittee 
     on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, Dr. 
     Nora Volkow, Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse 
     (NIDA), the government's lead agency on drug abuse research, 
     testified that even if marijuana were found to have medicinal 
     value at some point in the future, doctors could not in good 
     faith recommend patients smoke it because it is inherently 
     toxic as a delivery system. When considering new drug 
     therapies, any positive effects must outweigh the negative 
     side effects.
       Mr. President, I strongly urge you to instruct the FDA to 
     send warning letters to all states, local governments, 
     medical boards, websites and sellers of marijuana explaining 
     that the FDA has not approved botanical marijuana for 
     medicinal use and that it cannot be advertised as such. Thank 
     you for considering my views.
           Sincerely,

                                               Arthur T. Dean,

                                Major General, U.S. Army, Retired,
                                                 Chairman and CEO.

  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, times have sure changed since this 
appropriations bill was last presented to this Congress. We were a 
country free of mad cow disease and I was trying to pass an amendment 
requiring that no funds from the bill be used to allow downed animals 
into our food supply. I stood before this Congress and said: Let us do 
everything we can to make sure that mad cow disease never enters this 
country. Let us take precautionary measures and prevent downed 
animals--livestock too sick to walk or stand--from entering our food 
supply and require those animals to be humanely euthanized.
  This year, we are no longer a country free of mad cow disease and the 
USDA has since wisely implemented a series of interim final rules to 
strengthen food safety regulations in the United States. I applaud the 
USDA and FDA for their recent actions to strengthen safeguards against 
mad cow disease. I was pleased to read about recent regulations to 
remove highly infectious cattle materials from food, dietary 
supplementals and cosmetics. Though these regulations should have been 
in place years ago, I am thrilled to see that the USDA and FDA have 
embraced common sense policies to protect Americans.
  In good faith that the USDA will continue to enact sound policies to 
strengthen food safety laws and protect cattle from inhumane treatment, 
I will not be introducing my amendment again this year. As the USDA 
reviews the 22,000 public comments regarding their interim ban on 
downed animals, I urge the Department to consider the overwhelming 
number of comments--over 99 percent--that are strongly in favor of the 
ban.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also like to take this opportunity to assure 
fellow Members in this House, that any attempts to weaken or destroy 
the ban, will be met with the fury and resistance of the American 
people, who have overwhelmingly expressed their strong voice for a 
permanent downer ban. Let the record reflect that we fully expect that 
the final downer rule will be as strong, if not stronger, than the 
interim final rule. Tainted meat from sick animals has no business with 
American families. Let us not wait until the first case of the human 
form of mad cow disease is confirmed before taking actions to ensure 
the safety of our meat. Let us continue to work with the USDA and FDA 
to implement policies so we never ever have to see an American fall 
victim to mad cow disease.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Ose) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bass, Chairman of the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4766) making 
appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, pursuant to House 
Resolution 710, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry 
amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 389, 
nays 31, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 370]

                               YEAS--389

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cole
     Collins
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gephardt
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--31

     Boucher
     Burr
     Buyer
     Capuano
     Coble
     Conyers
     Crane
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Goode
     Gordon
     Hefley
     Johnson (CT)
     Kucinich
     Lewis (KY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     McDermott
     Meehan
     Moran (VA)

[[Page H5615]]


     Pascrell
     Paul
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Sensenbrenner
     Shays
     Smith (WA)
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tancredo

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bereuter
     Carson (IN)
     Deutsch
     Gutknecht
     Houghton
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     Majette
     Saxton
     Vitter


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose) (during the vote). Members are 
advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1856

  Mr. BUYER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. LOFGREN and Mr. UDALL of Colorado changed their voted from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the Record reflect that, had I 
been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 370, on passage of 
H.R. 4766, Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005.

                          ____________________