Congressional Record, Volume 150 Issue 96 (Tuesday, July 13, 2004)

[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

[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.

____________________