[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 75 (Wednesday, June 8, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H4201-H4208]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2744, AGRICULTURE, RURAL
DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 303 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 303
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2744) making appropriations for Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and
for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to
comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived except as
follows: beginning with the colon on page 54, line 4, through
``overseas'' on line 9; section 749; page 81, lines 1 though
7; and beginning with ``and'' on page 81, line 11, through
``programs'' on line 17. Where points of order are waived
against part of a paragraph or section, points of order
against a provision in another part of such paragraph or
section may be made only against such provision and not
against the entire paragraph or section. During consideration
of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of
the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of
whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be
printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated
for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so
printed shall be considered as read. When the committee rises
and reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation
that the bill do pass, the previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Putnam) is recognized for 1 hour.
{time} 1130
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
(Mr. PUTNAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 303 is an open rule
providing for consideration of H.R. 2744, making appropriations for
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006.
According to the rule general debate shall be confined to the bill
and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the
bill, and waives all points of order against provisions in the bill for
failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, prohibiting unauthorized
appropriations or legislative provisions in an appropriations bill,
except as specified in the resolution.
Under the rules of the House, the bill shall be read for amendment by
paragraph. After general debate, the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the 5-minute rule.
The resolution authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition
to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional
Record and provides one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to present for consideration this open
rule for the agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006. As
with most all appropriations bills, the Committee on Rules has once
again afford the entire Chamber an opportunity to offer any amendment
to this legislation that complies with the rules of the House.
Members of the House are permitted to come to the floor and bring
forth any idea or change they wish to see in this legislation. I am
pleased that rule provides a chance for all of our Members to express
their views on how our Nation should prioritize spending in this area.
Article 1, section 9 of the United States Constitution says, ``No
money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of
appropriations made by law.''
Our Founding Fathers established the role of the Committee on
Appropriations to ensure that our Nation's spending is subject to
oversight and approval by its elected representatives. The committee
plays an important role in determining the wise use of taxpayer funds.
I want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) and his
subcommittee for the tremendously difficult work this year in bringing
the spending bill under its budget allocation. The Congressional budget
is an important tool of the Congress, allowing us to establish
priorities for the coming fiscal year. It is always encouraging to see
the budget and the appropriations process work together in tandem,
allowing Congress to ensure that our government acts in a fiscally
responsible manner.
The Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations
has reported out a bill that provides important resources to ensure
that our Nation's farmers and ranchers remain competitive in the 21st
century. The legislation enhances our ability to safeguard our food
supply and addresses the nutritional needs of women and children and
the most disadvantaged in our country. The bill also works to maintain
and build fiscal discipline.
H.R. 2744 continues to fund important projects at a level consistent
with fiscal year 2005, allocating nearly $17 billion plus $83 billion
in total mandatory spending. At the same time, it addresses needs such
as the protection of health and safety. In an effort to combat harmful
pests and disease that
[[Page H4202]]
threaten America's food supply, the Food Safety and Inspection Service
funding is increased by $20 million over last year, and Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service activities are funded at $16 million
above last year's level, for a total of $829 million.
In addition, the Farm Service Agency's salaries and expenses are
funded at the President's request of $1 billion, allowing the continued
efficient delivery of farm and disaster programs that are so critical
to wide swaths of our great Nation.
To unlock much-needed advances in agricultural research and allow
American farmers to have the tools necessary to produce a safe and
wholesome food supply, the Agricultural Research Service is funded at
over $1.1 billion.
Additionally, USDA's Conservation Operations activities are increased
by $26 million over the President's request, which allows farmers and
ranchers to achieve important conservation and environmental goals as
our Nation's farmers and ranchers are the original environmentalists in
this country.
This appropriations bill is an excellent example of how Congress can
attain fiscal discipline and still fund our priorities. H.R. 2744 funds
programs over the President's budget request, increasing funding in
strategic areas while maintaining a funding level consistent with
funding for fiscal year 2005.
I am impressed with the work of the subcommittee, and I am certain
the appropriations process this year will serve as a model of how we
can achieve responsible and responsive funding simultaneously.
Mr. Speaker, I represent a congressional district in Florida that is
among the top in the Nation in production of certain agricultural
goods. I want to personally thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman
Bonilla) and the Subcommittee on Agriculture of the Committee on
Appropriations and the subcommittee staff for their continued
commitment and attention to the needs of all of American agriculture
and Florida in particular, especially in the aftermath of the
hurricanes that devastated much of Florida's agriculture last summer
and fall. The Committee on Appropriations' work is greatly appreciated.
I also wish to thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) for
his attention and dedication to the continued needs resulting from
invasive pests and diseases that are affecting a number of crops
throughout our country, including citrus canker affecting our citrus
industry in Florida. I know that all of America's farmers and ranchers
and consumers deeply appreciate the subcommittee's tireless efforts to
assist our agricultural community.
I urge Members to support this fair and open rule and the underlying
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam)
for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, passage of this rule will allow the House to consider
the Agricultural, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2006.
I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Texas
(Chairman Bonilla) and the subcommittee's new ranking member, the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), for working so well
together on this bill which clearly deserves the support of all the
membership of this House.
This important bill provides the funding for our domestic nutrition
and anti-hunger programs, international food aid, the Food and Drug
Administration, and food inspection. Although traditionally the bill is
not controversial, it is an important appropriations bill because of
the vitally important programs that are supported here.
I want to express my strong support for the Department of Agriculture
programs that fight to end hunger here at home and around the world.
Mr. Speaker, hunger is a political problem, one that can be solved if
only we have the political will to do so. Regrettably, the Bush
administration and the leadership in this House and the Senate have not
made the necessary commitments to reduce poverty and end hunger in our
country. Indeed, hunger and poverty are once again on the rise in the
United States. More children are going to bed hungry at night right
here in the United States of America, the richest and most blessed
country in the world. Every year six million children in our world die
of hunger-related causes. We cannot and should not stand by and watch
these tragedies unfold.
Mr. Speaker, it is time we raise the bar and pledge to end hunger
once and for all. It is time to really tackle the issue of poverty. In
the meantime, until we make that commitment and back it up with real
action and greater resources, we must at least maintain funding for the
domestic and international nutrition and anti-hunger programs in this
bill. That is why it is so important that this bill increases funding
for mandatory programs like food stamps and other child nutrition
programs like the school lunch program.
I am also pleased that discretionary programs like WIC also receive
increases. These programs are among the most successful of our Federal
anti-hunger programs, and they help millions of Americans get the food
they could not otherwise afford to buy.
Unfortunately, important programs like the summer food service
program are not fully funded. This important program provides meals to
low-income children during the summer when they can not receive a
school lunch because the schools are closed for summer vacation. There
is no reason why a child who receives a lunch at school during the
school year should be denied a lunch during the summer merely because
school is out of session.
Another important program that needs to be expanded is the school
breakfast program. Too many of our children begin their school days
hungry. They cannot concentrate as well as children who have something
to eat before class. Those children who are fortunate enough to receive
a school breakfast usually have to get to school earlier than the other
kids. There is a stigma that gets attached to these children because it
is plain for all the students to see who cannot afford to eat breakfast
at home.
We need to expand the school breakfast program so that it is a truly
universal program, and we must provide school breakfast at the start of
the school day and not before. These two simple actions will ensure
that a nutritious meal is provided to hungry children without attaching
any social stigma. The consequences of such basic changes will be
measurable increases in learning and test scores, as well as
improvements in health.
A third program that needs to be fully funded is the effort to end
the reduced price meal. Currently, low-income children are eligible for
either a free school lunch or a reduced price lunch. The reduced price
lunch costs 40 cents per meal. While that may not seem like a lot to
you or me, it can put a real strain on the finances of many low-income
families who are struggling to make ends meet. Too often, school lunch
administrators report seeing children who are able to buy lunch at the
beginning of the month stop eating as the month goes on, merely because
their families cannot afford to pay for that reduced price lunch as
money gets tighter and tighter towards the end of the paycheck.
The Child Nutrition Reauthorization Bill, a truly bipartisan bill
that was signed into law last year, phases out the reduced price meal.
Last year, thousands of anti-hunger activists roamed the halls of
Capitol Hill with their blue and white ERP buttons on, and Congress
responded. Now it is time to back up that promise and fully fund the
effort to end the reduced price meal.
Mr. Speaker, the fiscal year 2006 bill also provides funding for the
International Food Aid Programs administered by the USDA. These
programs provide emergency food aid to regions of the world that need
help today. I am pleased that President Bush pledged to release $674
million for humanitarian relief on the Horn of Africa. However, while
it is important that the United States provide the funding for
humanitarian relief around the world, the Committee on Appropriations
must ensure that these funds are replenished for the following year.
[[Page H4203]]
Unfortunately, this bill underfunds the Food for Peace Program, which
is one of our most important food aid and development programs. I
commend the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) for restoring $222
million to this program above the President's request. But the program
still remains $60 million below last year's level. While emergency
funding was included in the tsunami relief package, we should not rely
on emergency funding when we can properly fund this important program
in the Agriculture Appropriations bill. Nor should we shortchange
funding for the ongoing programs that are funded through the Food for
Peace and other international food aid programs.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I also want to commend the gentleman from Texas
(Chairman Bonilla) and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), for increasing funding for the George
McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for Education and Child
Nutrition Program. This program uses American commodities to provide
school meals to hungry children around the world. It is named after two
men who have led the fight against child hunger while they served in
the United States Senate and as private citizens.
Senator George McGovern is a dear friend of mine who has worked
tirelessly on ending hunger over his decades of public service, and I
cannot say enough about Senator Bob Dole's work on combating hunger
here and abroad. He is a man of great integrity and someone who I
respect immensely. I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to have the
opportunity to work with his wife, Senator Elizabeth Dole, on a number
of anti-hunger efforts.
The McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child
Nutrition Program is based on our own school lunch and breakfast
program. It provides a nutritious meal for hungry children in a school
setting. It has resulted in not only reducing child hunger abroad but
in better schools and stronger community support for education in some
of the poorest communities in the world. It is a successful program
that is developing the long-term support of the Bush administration,
and it deserves to be expanded.
I am pleased that the Bush administration and the leadership in the
House and Senate agree on the importance of the McGovern-Dole program.
The President's budget has included an increase in funding for this
program over each of the last 3 years; and, more importantly, the
Congress has agreed in increased funding over the past 3 years.
Mr. Speaker, while I believe the funding must be restored to $300
million, the original level of the Global Food for Education
Initiative, the pilot program that preceded the McGovern-Dole program,
I am pleased that the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) and
the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) have supported the
President's request for increased funding of $100 million for fiscal
year 2006.
I am also encouraged by the level of commitment to the McGovern-Dole
program in the Senate, and I am hopeful that funding for this program
will be further increased when the Senate considers this bill later
this year.
Mr. Speaker, in December of 2004, 105 of our House colleagues sent a
bipartisan letter to President Bush supporting the McGovern-Dole
program. That letter is as follows:
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, December 2, 2004.
Hon. George W. Bush,
President of the United States,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: We are writing to urge you to provide
$300 million in your Fiscal Year 2006 Budget Proposal for the
George McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for Education
and Child Nutrition Program. We believe it is urgent to
restore funding for this program at levels similar to those
of the original pilot program.
We strongly believe this funding is critical for sustaining
and expanding the McGovern-Dole Program in order to combat
terrorism and to help build and consolidate democracy in the
Middle East, southern Asia, the Near East, and in other
regions critical to U.S. national security. As you are aware,
the McGovern-Dole Program provides donations of U.S.
agricultural products, as well as financial and technical
assistance, for school feeding and maternal and child
nutrition programs in low-income countries. We note that
recommendations made by the General Accounting Office (GAO)
in February 2002 on how to strengthen and improve the
administration and implementation of school feeding programs
were fully integrated into the law establishing the McGovern-
Dole Program, enhancements that we believe have contributed
to its current success.
Both the initial plot program and the current McGovern-Dole
Program have a proven track record at reducing the incidence
of hunger among school-age children and improving literacy
and primary education, especially among girls, in areas
devastated by war, hunger, poverty, HIV/AIDS, and the
mistreatment of women and girls. School meals, teacher
training, and related support have helped boost school
enrollment and academic performance. McGovern-Dole nutrition
and school feeding programs also improve the health and
learning capacity of children both before they enter school
and during the years of primary and elementary school
In February 2003, the U.S. Department of Agriculture
evaluated the McGovern-Dole pilot program and found
significant positive results. Specifically--
``The results to date show measurable improvements in
school enrollment, including increased access by girls. In
projects involving more than 4,000 participating schools, the
WFP reports an overall enrollment increase exceeding 10
percent, with an 11.7 percent increase in enrollment by
girls. The PVO's report an overall enrollment increase of
5.75 percent in GFE-participating schools. In some projects,
increases in enrollment were as high as 32 percent compared
with enrollment rates over the previous three years.''
(USDA, The Global Food for Education Pilot Program: A Review
of Project Implementation and Impact, page 2, February 2003)
We firmly believe that these programs reduce the risk of
terrorism by helping to eliminate the hopelessness and
despair that breed terrorism. American products and
commodities are directly associated with hunger alleviation
and educational opportunity, encouraging support and good
will for the United States in these communities and
countries.
We strongly urge that you restore the capacity of this
critically important program by providing $300 million for
Fiscal Year 2006.
Sincerely,
James P. McGovern, Nancy Pelosi, James A. Leach, Hilda L.
Solis, Todd Tiahrt, Ike Skelton, Jo Ann Emerson, Frank
R. Wolf, Tom Lantos, Donald A. Manzullo, Earl Pomeroy,
Marcy Kaptur, John Shimkus, George Miller, Roger F.
Wicker, Rosa L. DeLauro, Lynn C. Woolsey, Anthony D.
Weiner, Chris Van Hollen.
Neil Abercrombie, Ron Kind, Sam Graves, Jose E. Serrano,
Albert R. Wynn, Robert Wexler, Maxine Waters, John F.
Tierney, Gary L. Ackerman, Robert E. Andrews, Earl
Blumenauer, Leonard L. Boswell, Corrine Brown, Michael
E. Capuano, Elijah E. Cummings, William D. Delahunt,
Bob Etheridge, Tammy Baldwin, Madeleine Z. Bordallo.
Rick Boucher, Sherrod Brown, Joseph Crowley, Susan A.
Davis, Michael F. Doyle, James L. Oberstar, John W.
Olver, David E. Price, Bobby L. Rush, Bernard Sanders,
Janice D. Schakowsky, Vic Snyder, Eni F. H.
Faleomavaega, Barney Frank, Donald M. Payne, Steven R.
Rothman, Martin Olav Sabo, Max Sandlin, Adam Smith,
Fortney Pete Stark.
Bob Filner, Charles A. Gonzalez, Raul M. Grijalva,
Stephanie Herseth, Tim Holden, Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Rick Larsen, Stephen Lynch, Karen McCarthy, Jim
Marshall, Alcee L. Hastings, Maurice D. Hinchey, Sheila
Jackson-Lee, Dale E. Kildee, Barbara Lee, Carolyn
McCarthy, Carolyn B. Maloney, Jim Matheson, Betty
McCollum.
Michael R. McNulty, Gregory W. Meeks, Dennis Moore,
Richard E. Neal, Jim McDermott, Sam Farr, Christopher
H. Smith, Martin T. Meehan, Juanita Millender-McDonald,
James P. Moran, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Thaddeus G.
McCotter, Major Owens, Linda T. Sanchez, Thomas H.
Allen, Doc Hastings, Patrick J. Kennedy, Edward J.
Markey, Brad Miller, and Sander M. Levin.
Mr. Speaker, the following is a letter from Secretary of Agriculture
Mike Johanns expressing his support for the McGovern-Dole program:
Hon. James P. McGovern,
House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman McGovern: Thank you for the letter of
December 2, 2004, from you and your colleagues to President
George W. Bush, expressing your support for the McGovern-Dole
International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program
(FFE). The White House forwarded your letter to the
Department of Agriculture (USDA) for reply. We apologize for
the delay in responding.
This Administration greatly appreciates your support for
this very successful program. USDA now has 5 years of
experience with FFE and its predecessor, the Global Food for
Education Initiative. These programs have reached over 7
million beneficiaries and provided close to 1.3 million tons
of agricultural commodities as well as other types of
assistance to schools and communities. The positive results
include increased school enrollment, especially among
[[Page H4204]]
girls; declines in absenteeism; improved concentration,
energy, and attitudes toward learning; and infrastructure
improvements, including classrooms, kitchens, storage
facilities, water systems, latrines, and playgrounds.
We are especially gratified that FFE has resulted in
greater local commitment to school feeding activities. In
many cases, FFE activities have been so successful that local
support for school feeding is expanding to the point that FFE
assistance can shortly be ended. Examples of these
``graduating'' countries are Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Moldova and
Vietnam. We will continue to allocate some FFE resources to
these countries this year as we expand the benefits of FFE by
implementing programs in additional countries. Additionally,
the success of FFE has resulted in other donors becoming
involved in school feeding programs. These other donors
include the European Union, the German Agency for Technical
Cooperation, the Japanese Development Agency, Canada, and the
World Health Organization.
We agree that funding for FFE should be expanded in fiscal
year (FY) 2006. While the Administration is making a
concerted effort to cut the budget deficit, we have requested
$100 million in appropriated funding for FFE in FY 2006,
which is double the funding for the program in FY 2004 and an
increase of 15 percent compared to FY 2005.
Thank you again for writing to support this important
program. We look forward to continuing to work with you to
improve USDA's overseas food aid programs. A similar letter
has been sent to each of your colleagues.
Sincerely,
Mike Johanns,
Secretary.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) has crafted
a bill that deserves to be supported today; and while there is room for
improvement, I believe that the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla)
and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro)
and the Subcommittee on Agriculture of the Committee on Appropriations
did the best they could with the limited resources they were given.
Again, I thank my friend from Florida (Mr. Putnam).
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. McGovern)
comments about hunger remind me of an old proverb. ``When there is
food, there are many problems. When there is no food, there is only one
problem.'' The gentleman speaks very passionately about that issue. It
reminds me how fortunate we are that, because of the productivity of
the American farmer and rancher, that Americans spend less of their
disposable income on food than any other industrialized nation and our
greatest threats in terms of childhood illnesses is obesity, not
hunger. And I would not trade our problem for anybody else's.
It is clearly a huge issue. I am proud of the work the appropriators
have done in allocating $900 million through the emergency bill for
those who were ravaged by the tsunami that struck southeast Asia.
{time} 1145
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for
yielding me the time, and I rise in strong support of the rule and the
underlying legislation.
The Agriculture appropriations bill is being considered under an open
rule that allows all Members to offer their amendments to this
important piece of legislation, and I believe that all Members should
be able to support this rule.
I commend the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) and the other
members of his committee for their work on this very important
legislation. I would like to highlight a few of the provisions of
particular importance to my district of West Virginia.
Resource conservation and development councils across the country,
including the Potomac Headwaters and Little Kanawha councils in my
district, leverage very successfully Federal, State and local money
with private sector dollars to support conservation and economic
development activities in our rural communities. I think it is
important to note that anytime a successful collaboration between all
of the different governmental entities and private sector dollars is
able to achieve results that we should recognize that, and I am pleased
that this bill does so.
These local councils have years of experience with development and
conservation issues and understand the needs of our home areas. The
heartfelt letters and phone calls that I receive from constituents and
community leaders across West Virginia demonstrate the good work that
RC&D councils are doing. I thank the Committee on Appropriations for
rejecting the plan to end the Resource Conservation and Development
program and instead fully fund the local councils at last year's level.
Also, I want to thank the committee for restoring formula funds for
the Hatch Act, the McIntire-Stennis program, and the Animal Health
Disease program and rejecting proposals to turn these funds into
competitive grants.
West Virginia University has a very successful extension service that
does an outstanding job of researching problems facing farmers in my
State and across the Nation. Every State has an extension service
devoted to solving agriculture programs in their local areas.
Switching to a competitive grant system would have jeopardized the
ability of local extension services to deal with local plant disease or
animal health problems.
This appropriations bill also provides a $630 million increase for
the Child Nutrition program. In West Virginia, my home State, 145,000
children received free or reduced school lunches this past year. That
is more than half of our State's K through 12 total enrollment. It is
important that we maintain this funding for this important program.
For these reasons and many others, I think it is extremely important
that not only do we pass the rule but we also pass the good hard work
of the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, and
their efforts to preserve and enrich the programs that are feeding not
only our country but other countries and developing the research to
find other ways to maximize our resources.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Before I yield to our next speaker, I would just like to respond to
something the gentleman from Florida had said in his comments on
hunger.
As I should point out to the gentleman, there are 36 million people
in the United States of America who are hungry, and every single one of
us in this Chamber should be ashamed of that fact. We can do better.
He mentioned the problem of obesity. I should point out to the
gentleman that there is a relationship, believe it or not, between
malnutrition and hunger and obesity. A lot of the cases of obesity are
directly related to the fact that a lot of families cannot afford to
put a decent meal on the table. So these kids end up eating junk food,
and it results in the obesity problem.
We have a huge problem here. We should not minimize it, and we have a
long way to go.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
for yielding me time and for all the effort and attention the committee
has paid to this important bill on agriculture and the Food and Drug
Administration.
I just might say to the gentleman from Massachusetts, I, too, want to
applaud his passion and his diligence and vigilance on the issue of
hunger and how it affects our children and families in the United
States and internationally. I thank him for leading the way for us.
I also want to compliment the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla)
on working under very difficult circumstances to deliver this bill on
the floor and for working across the aisle. His staff, the gentleman
from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) staff and mine have worked diligently to
get us here today, and I thank all of them for their service and for
their patience.
This bill, unfortunately, falls short in filling the needs in rural
America and in fully protecting our public health. While I believe that
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) has done his best with a
difficult allocation, regrettably there are shortfalls. We have barely
maintained the same
[[Page H4205]]
funding level as last year, $16.8 billion, in discretionary funds; and
we all know that there are increased benefit costs and salary increases
that need to be accounted for in that number. A stable number does not
mean a stable agriculture and food and drug effort by our government.
The chairman had to make up for a huge gap in the administration's
proposal when it included an unauthorized user fee of $139 million in
the budget. Finding that amount of money to keep our extremely
important food safety efforts for meat and poultry operating was not an
easy task. It certainly forced the chairman to leave other needs unmet
at USDA.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, the bill still does not include enough
funding to cover the food security needs of the elderly under the
Commodity Supplemental Food program. There are hundreds of millions
more pending requests for building and repairing water and sewer
systems and for conserving our precious soil and water resources.
The Commodity Supplemental Food program operating in 32 States and
providing surplus food commodities to seniors and to families of young
children who no longer qualify for any other help, but who have hungry
young ones to feed, is predicted to have to stop feeding at least
45,000 people with the current level of funding in this account.
At the same time, USDA resources are essential so that our
agricultural base is not harmed by outbreaks of diseases such as
soybean rust or bovine spongiform encephalopathy, BSE or mad cow.
United States agriculture is not isolated, and we need to remain
vigilant and steady in our support of scientific research institutions
in our prevention efforts and in our strategic planning and
coordination for these types of challenges to our food supply and our
health.
In the natural resources area, the bill is $52 million below last
year. Water and waste grants, so critical to public health and economic
growth for our rural communities, are funded below 2004.
The agriculture community has so many important needs, from commodity
support to export promotion, from building new community facilities in
rural areas to conserving farm land, and by combating animal and plant
diseases and protecting human health, by enforcing our food safety laws
and maintaining basic nutrition for our citizens. Rural areas are not
always places with high tax bases and young working people. Rather, we
know 90 percent of the country's poorest counties are in rural America,
and these counties have a poverty rate that is a disturbing 14.2
percent. If we want these areas to begin to prosper again, we have to
help them with infrastructure and community-building.
Some forget that another important public health agency is also
funded in this bill, the Food and Drug Administration within the
Department of Health and Human Services. Again, the chairman has done a
good job in trying to find funding for this budget for the Food and
Drug Administration.
This year, the subcommittee was deprived of the opportunity to hear
from the Acting Commissioner of FDA due to what we understand was
intervention from the administration. This meant that we had to work on
their portion of the bill without being able to ask questions that we
would ordinarily have used to learn about their current operations.
Nevertheless, with the gentleman from Texas' (Mr. Bonilla) help, we
have started down a road to building some additional resources for drug
safety and the possibility of more effective oversight of postmarket
prescription drugs, by increasing the resources of the office that
performs direct-to-consumer advertising claims reviews.
FDA is an agency that has demonstrated itself to be in crisis over
the last year. We had an influenza outbreak predicted, but we were
surprised to learn that another government's regulatory system had
found the flu vaccine supply on which we were counting to be flawed.
Drugs like Vioxx and Bextra that scientists at FDA knew were causing
illness and death were permitted to remain on the market and be
advertized well beyond the point that they should have been voluntarily
withdrawn or forced off the market.
Companies that had promised to perform postmarket studies in return
for early introduction of their products failed miserably in keeping
their promises without penalty.
However, I am pleased that the subcommittee took action on this
matter by fencing off 5 percent of the appropriation to the leadership
offices of FDA until the head of the agency testifies before our
subcommittee. This is a very important provision to maintain in this
bill until we get some answers.
I am also pleased that the subcommittee adopted an amendment
addressing the reimportation of FDA-approved prescription drugs from
FDA-approved facilities from Canada and other developed countries so
that our people can buy them at affordable prices. This House has
expressed its will on this issue over and over again, most recently
with a letter signed by a bipartisan majority of the House to the
Speaker, and we want to be able to keep this provision in the bill
through conference.
I thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) for his
willingness to work across the aisle to replace many of the cuts sent
up by the President. We know that we cannot meet all the actual needs
that are out in the country; but this bill is a valiant effort, given
the budget parameters.
I know there will be several amendments offered today, especially on
behalf of enhanced civil rights and solutions to regional or specific
problems. I believe that debate will be a healthy one, and I look
forward to it.
I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), our distinguished majority whip.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time,
and I rise today in support of the rule and in support of the gentleman
from Texas' (Chairman Bonilla) efforts on the underlying bill.
I also in my remarks today want to urge my colleagues to retain the
chairman's language on mandatory country-of-origin labeling, more
commonly known as COOL, C-O-O-L. This is clearly a marketing issue, not
a food safety issue, and puts an unnecessary burden on producers,
processors, and consumers if not handled in exactly the right way.
The Agriculture Department has estimated the costs of the current
mandatory country-of-origin labeling program could be as much as $4
billion in the first year alone. Assuming that producers figure out a
way to pass along that $4 billion, that $4 billion is $4 billion added
at grocery stores to shopping-cart prices, and then they talk about a
cost of several hundred million dollars a year in the years after the
first year.
With so many unanswered questions, now is not the time for this
mandate. For example, when COOL goes into effect beginning on September
30, 2006, how will we treat the cattle, hogs and lambs and sheep that
were born before that date? Is there any legal market for these
hundreds of thousands of animals that are out there on farms and in
farming facilities right now? Until we find out the answer to problems
like this, there is no reason to move forward with this costly mandate
that puts a disproportionate share of the cost on the producer.
A much better approach is for Congress to approve a voluntary program
and place control in the hands of consumers at the marketplace. It is
for this reason that I have joined the fight with the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), who is our Committee on Agriculture
authorizing chairman, on our voluntary country-of-origin legislation
that would permanently make the country-of-origin legislation a
voluntary program for meat and meat products, not, Mr. Speaker, for
vegetables, for fruit, for other products, but for meat and meat
products, products that have a longer life, products that are more
mobile, and products that in many cases are going to be already in the
hands of producers, on the farms of producers before September 30,
2006, with potentially no legal way to sell those products.
Voluntary labeling, on the other hand, would give producers added
market value rather than a costly Federal mandate. Voluntary COOL would
ultimately give consumers, not the Federal Government, control of
country-
[[Page H4206]]
of-origin labeling for products. The voluntary labeling program would
add value throughout the food chain, including the producer as well as
the consumer.
{time} 1200
Voluntary COOL would also create a brand for products of the United
States and encourage consumers to buy American meats where they shop.
The label would add value to American agricultural products.
Voluntarily labeling beef, pork, lamb and other meat products is a
better way to need the needs of consumers and promote American
agricultural products without the enormous costs and burdens of a
mandatory law.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's work product, the bill
which has been brought to the floor, and the hard work he has done on
this issue and urge my colleagues to support the chairman's efforts.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Slaughter).
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, as we debate the agriculture
appropriations bill today, we will consider funding for the Food and
Drug Administration. I am very disappointed that the Hinchey FDA reform
amendment will not be allowed under this rule. The amendment would give
the Food and Drug Administration two new authorities that are badly
needed to improve the FDA's drug safety operations and ensure that FDA
has the tools to take timely action to protect Americans from unsafe
drugs.
It would have empowered the FDA with the authority to require
companies to conduct post-marketing studies of FDA-approved drugs and
would also have given the FDA the authority to mandate changes to the
labels of FDA-approved drugs. Unfortunately, efforts to include the
amendment were defeated in the Committee on Rules on a party-line vote.
I am deeply concerned about the FDA's handling, or rather their
mishandling, of the consideration to allow emergency contraception to
be sold over the counter. For almost 100 years, the FDA has overseen
the safety of food, cosmetics, drugs, and medical devices consumed by
the American public, but we cannot trust them unconditionally any more.
The agency defines itself as a scientific, regulatory and public
health agency. But for what appears to be the first time in the
agency's history, the FDA has jettisoned the rigorous standards of
science and health in evaluating emergency contraception and has
instead taken the counsel of religious and political extremists in its
consideration of this important pregnancy-preventive drug.
And the results of such counsel have been predictable. Despite the
fact that 23 of 27 members of the FDA's advisory panel voted in favor
of allowing over-the-counter sales of Barr Laboratories' Plan B
emergency contraceptive and despite the overwhelming scientific
evidence in support of the application, the FDA made the unusual
decision to disregard its own advisory panel's recommendation and
reject the application.
One of the dissenting panelists was evangelical conservative Dr. W.
David Hager. In October of 2002, I sent a letter to President Bush
expressing my deep reservations about appointing Dr. Hager as Chair of
the Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs at the FDA. Based
on Dr. Hager's past conduct, I believed he would not be impartial in
his decisions. On numerous occasions, Dr. Hager had already displayed a
willingness to substitute his personal beliefs for science. My request,
unfortunately, went unheeded by the administration.
Now recent reports have alleged that the FDA, while considering
allowing over-the-counter sales of emergency contraceptive, requested a
minority opinion by Dr. Hager to justify a politically motivated
decision to Barr Laboratories' application, a truly outrageous request
which, if true, has further jeopardized the scientific integrity of the
FDA.
Clearly the standards of science and the interest of public health
have taken a back seat to the political agenda of extremist
politicians.
The scientific facts irrefutably show that emergency contraception is
a safe and effective way for women to prevent unintended pregnancies.
Emergency contraception has been available in the United States by
prescription since the late 1990s. It does not cause abortion. Instead,
it stops the release of the eggs from the ovary and prevents unwanted
pregnancy. If preventing unwanted pregnancy is something we support, no
matter what our individual positions are on a woman's reproductive
freedom, we should be outraged by this lack of science behind this
decision.
Effectively preventing unwanted pregnancies is clearly the best way
to reduce the number of abortions, and if my colleagues care about
that, they must recognize this fundamental truth.
The Alan Guttmacher Institute estimates that increased use of
emergency contraceptives accounted for up to 43 percent of the total
decline in abortions between 1994 and the year 2000. In addition,
emergency contraception is often the only option for the 300,000 women
who are raped each year. It is widely recognized as an integral part of
comprehensive and compassionate emergency treatment for sexual assault
survivors.
The bottom line here is that over-the-counter approval is the single
most effective tool we have to reduce unwanted pregnancies in America,
but one man is holding it up. Anyone really serious about reducing the
number of abortions will support making it available. There are two
only sides of this line Members can be on. They either want to stop
apportions or reduce them, or they do not.
As we await again a decision on Barr Laboratories, a decision the FDA
promised in January but has not given us yet, I urge them to base this
and future decision on science, not politics. It is time the FDA
recognizes it must be more accountable to the American public to make
the best decisions possible based on scientific evidence which is what
they are for. They just do not do that anymore.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this Congress is owned lock, stock and barrel
by the pharmaceutical industry. That was made obvious on passage of the
so-called Medicare drug benefit last year when the majority party
rammed through this place, after a 3-hour wait, a provision which
prevented the Federal Government from negotiating with the drug
industry to require lower drug prices under the Medicare program.
Another piece of evidence of the ownership of this Congress by that
industry is the fact that this House will not be voting today on an
amendment that would give the FDA the enhanced ability to change the
label on drugs that have already been approved if later studies
demonstrate that those labels need to be changed.
I had a member of my family who almost died because of Vioxx. She
took that drug at the suggestion of a doctor, and it virtually ruined
her liver. She does not drink alcohol, and yet when the doctor examined
her he told her that she effectively had the liver of a 65-year-old
chronic alcoholic because of what Vioxx had done to her.
It took 14 months for the FDA to be able to change Vioxx labeling.
Any Congress with any guts whatsoever would have had on this floor a
long time ago legislation to give FDA that authority, but that is a big
money lobby, and they sure pass it around. Last year, they had 500
lobbyists telling this Congress what to do on the Medicare prescription
drug bill. They may as well have had a baby-sitter for every Member of
Congress. That is how many lobbyists they had running around Capitol
Hill.
On that bill on that issue, instead of being the greatest legislative
body in the world, Capitol Hill was effectively a trash heap.
I intend to vote for this bill because I think the chairman has done
a reasonable job with limited resources, but I do not intend to vote
for this rule if there is a rollcall because I think this rule should
have made the Hinchey amendment in order. It is about time that this
institution and the President of the United States starts talking about
and dealing with issues that the American people care about, rather
[[Page H4207]]
than issues that we care about in terms of our internal operations,
such as the filibuster in the Senate or these other nonsense issues
that are really inside baseball.
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to get that off my chest so in case there
is a rollcall on the rule, Members will know why I voted against it.
I also want to raise one other point. We are not starting on the bill
itself until some time after 12. We had other filler on the floor here
today before we got to this appropriations bill. There are 11 must-pass
bills a session, all of them appropriation bills. We have been asked on
the minority side of the aisle, even though we regard most of those
bills as being inadequate, we have been asked to provide procedural
cooperation in order to facilitate the ability of the majority to do
the House's work, and we have provided that procedural cooperation. But
I have to say I get very frustrated when we are told that the Committee
on Appropriations has to be prepared to work until 10 or 11 tonight
because you have certain Members of Congress off on a golfing
tournament this morning and early this afternoon.
I resent the fact that there are not going to be any votes until
after 2 so a few of our colleagues can go off and golf while we are
here trying to slog through the 11 appropriation bills that have to
pass before this Congress can adjourn. I do not raise that fact because
I am a lousy golfer, although I am. I raise that fact simply because
sooner or later it would be nice if this place puts the public's
business first and puts appropriation bills first rather than dragging
in other legislation that is put on the floor simply to delay the time
before the Committee on Appropriations gets to the amendment stage of
its bills.
So, with all due respect, I will vote for this bill, but I think the
process by which we have gotten to this bill is a sorry one.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Respecting the gentleman's right to get off his chest whatever he
chooses to get off of his chest, I would point out that the
appropriations process is far ahead of schedule, and we are on track to
complete the program of passing the bills through the House before July
4.
I would also point out our appreciation to the gentleman for his
support for the bill and recognition of the hard work the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and his subcommittee have put in to an
outstanding agriculture appropriation bill, and appreciate the fact
that, despite his misgivings about the process, he likes the work
product that this committee has produced.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time to speak on the rule.
I favor the rule. It will enable us today later in the debate to
consider an amendment that, if approved, will reduce by 6 percent the
sugar subsidy that we have under our current system.
We will hear in the course of this debate how the current sugar
subsidization is a serious misallocation of resources to a few large
farmers and agribusiness interests when we are unable to meet the needs
under the ag bill for America's small- and medium-sized farmers.
We will learn how the current policies damage the environment,
especially in the Everglades. The Everglades are polluted from the
practice of cane sugar production, threatening drinking water for south
Florida, maritime habitat is seriously damaged, and makes the $8
billion down payment that we have made on the cleanup of the Everglades
harder, larger and ultimately more expensive.
The current policies violate our own principles of free trade. Forty-
one other sugar-producing countries cannot compete with the lavishly
subsidized American market, where they are largely excluded,
particularly for poor countries. It makes our free trade arguments
hypocritical.
{time} 1215
It is costing American consumers with this unjustified subsidy,
forcing them to pay two or three times the world price for sugar. And
it is costing jobs. There are seven times more businesses that use
sugar than produce sugar and is forcing them, I see my colleague from
Illinois here, where the confectionery industry in Illinois is being
driven across the border to Canada because the raw material is so much
cheaper.
There will be an opportunity, thankfully, to discuss this under an
open rule, and I am hopeful that we will take this small step to put a
little sanity in the way we treat sugar.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).
(Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my thanks to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms.
DeLauro). This is a very good bill. I am privileged to be on this
subcommittee and to serve with two distinguished leaders, the
gentlewoman from Connecticut and the gentleman from Texas. They both
have worked very hard together. This is a very good bill for
agriculture. It is a very good bill for our farmers. I represent
farmers in central Illinois who produce a lot of food and fiber for the
world, particularly corn and beans.
One of the things that the chairman and ranking member have done has
also really put a lot of emphasis on the research title, providing the
research dollars to places like the University of Illinois in Champaign
and to the ag research lab. I have one of the four ag research labs in
the country in my hometown of Peoria. They do great work there. They
collaborate with many different people in the community to really think
outside of the box about how we take the food and fiber that we produce
and the commodities we produce and stretch them into many different
opportunities for farmers, and also for researchers. We have some of
the smartest people that work in the ag research lab in Peoria. They
could not do their work without the kind of dollars that are provided
through this bill. The chairman has really done an extraordinary job in
working with all the members of the subcommittee and the committee,
really, to reach out and try to provide the dollars that are necessary.
This is a very good bill for agriculture. It is a good bill for
America. I ask all Members to support the rule and ultimately to
support the bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for this bill which I think is a good
bill despite an unsatisfactory allocation. I think this bill deserves
support by all our colleagues. However, I would respectfully suggest
that this Congress in the future focus more on alleviating hunger and
poverty in this country.
Yesterday was National Hunger Awareness Day. There were thousands of
people that descended on Capitol Hill from all over the country urging
Congress to do more. I hope we will do more. They are right. There is
much more for us to do.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his comments. His
passion for ending hunger in this country is laudable. This is a fair
rule. It is an open rule. With the exception of those amendments that
are legislating on an appropriations bill, anyone can come down here
and have the opportunity to make their case for changes. So while
Members have been here expressing frustrations about certain policy
issues, there has been widespread agreement, including from the
gentleman on the Rules Committee and including from the distinguished
ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations and the ranking
member of the subcommittee. There has been a general agreement of
support for the underlying bill that the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Bonilla) has produced. I am glad to see that type of bipartisan
cooperation that has not been given the credit that is due here in
Washington.
This is a great bill for America's resources and for the conservation
element that America's farmers and ranchers are so vital in
participating
[[Page H4208]]
in. It provides the necessary framework for disaster programs and
commodity programs that allow us to continue to provide the safest,
cheapest, most wholesome food supply in abundance in the world with a
very small percentage of our population; and it allows us to continue
to be in the forefront of technology and research and development,
continuing to be on the cutting edge of having greater production,
greater yields on fewer acres in the most environmentally conscious
manner possible, in addition to dealing with our nutrition issues, our
women, infant and children issues and school lunch programs and the
other important issues for our underserved in this country.
It is a great bill, Mr. Speaker. I encourage this entire House to
support the rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________