Congressional Record, Volume 151 Issue 75 (Wednesday, June 8, 2005)

[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 75 (Wednesday, June 8, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H4208-H4251]
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, 2006

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 303 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2744.
The Chair designates the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) as
chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from
California (Mr. Issa) to assume the chair temporarily.

{time} 1224

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 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, with Mr. Issa
(Acting Chairman) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as
having been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla).
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring before the House today the fiscal
year 2006 appropriations bill for agriculture, rural development, the
FDA and related agencies. As many people know, this bill does not just
fund agriculture issues that are so important for the Nation and the
world but also funds the Food and Drug Administration, the Women,
Infants and Children program, and the food stamp program. There are a
wide variety of issues that are very significant to this Nation and the
world.
This is a bipartisan bill, Mr. Chairman. I am very proud this year to
have worked for the first time with the gentlewoman from Connecticut
(Ms. DeLauro), who was a great partner in putting this bill together,
as are all the members of the subcommittee. This is a great
subcommittee that comes to the table every day with sometimes
differences of opinion, but at the end of the day want to get a bill
done. As chairman of this subcommittee, it has been a very fulfilling
experience to have gone through this process with this great group.
We have difficult challenges every year when we put this subcommittee
mark together and when we put the bill together. We had over 2,100
individual requests from Members; so with the good staff that we have
that I will get into a little more later, we have had to go through
with a fine-tooth comb every request to make sure that it does not
overlap with another request and then to prioritize all of these very
important issues that come from Members all over the country.
I would also like to thank the staff for working on this. I want to
take a moment to mention some very important names who have worked on
this bill, sometimes day and night and on weekends as well: Martha
Foley of the minority staff; and Maureen Holohan, Leslie Barrack, and
Jamie Swafford of the majority staff. In addition, I want to thank our
detailee Tom O'Brien and Walt Smith from my personal staff; and, of
course, my distinguished clerk, Martin Delgado, who does a fabulous job
on this bill. I also want to take a brief moment to recognize Joanne
Perdue who worked on the committee for several years and retired from
the committee just this past month.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to point out just in very broad terms
that this bill takes care of a lot of issues that are critical not just
to agriculture producers but to consumers in terms of food safety,
research projects that are going on in every State in this Nation. A
lot of people go to the grocery store, Mr. Chairman, and they see that
big truck pulling up in the back of the store and unloading goods that
are put on shelves and in the freezers at the local grocery store and
their products that are sold at a high quality for a good price. Quite
frankly, most Americans do not know all of the policy and all of the
research and all of the hard work that goes into putting that product
on the shelf so that Americans can go into the store, use those coupons
and enjoy themselves and the quality of life that it brings to
Americans all across the country. Again, there is a lot of detail that
goes into putting this bill together.
I am also very proud to work hand in hand with the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), our authorizing chairman, who has been a
partner in this process not just this year but every year. So all of
these policies and all of these programs that I am talking about here
have been a team effort.
Mr. Chairman, I include at this point in the Record the following
tabular material related to the bill:

[[Page H4209]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN05.001

[[Page H4210]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN05.002

[[Page H4211]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN05.003

[[Page H4212]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN05.004

[[Page H4213]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN05.005

[[Page H4214]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN05.006

[[Page H4215]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN05.007

[[Page H4216]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN05.008

[[Page H4217]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN05.009

[[Page H4218]]

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentleman for his statement. I am pleased to join him for
the first time in my capacity as ranking member of the agriculture
appropriations subcommittee. It has been a pleasure working with the
gentleman from Texas and his staff to put together the 2006 agriculture
appropriations bill and with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis)
and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) as we worked in full
committee to get here today.
I, too, would like to say thank you to the staff of the subcommittee:
to Martha Foley; to my own personal staff, to Karen Wilcox, Ashley
Turton and Becky Salay; the majority office, Martin Delgado, Maureen
Holohan, Leslie Barrack, Tom O'Brien, Jami Burgess. I really again say
thank you for your expertise and for your patience. Let me also
compliment the chairman on doing the very best with limited resources
in this bill. Unfortunately, we know that the budget situation means
that the funding allocation for this subcommittee was simply not
sufficient to meet all the needs of rural America and our Nation's
farmers.
When I chose to sit on this subcommittee 9 years ago, I did so
because I believed that the issues overseen by this subcommittee are
core responsibilities of the Federal Government. This is the only
subcommittee where farm policy, rural development and conservation,
nutrition programs, food safety, drug regulations, and public health
all come together. Although some might be surprised to learn, I have
nearly 400 farms in my district ranging from dairy farms to
horticulture and aquaculture, to orchards and vegetable cultivation. In
fact, the first experiment station in the United States still does
cutting-edge research in New Haven.
Another area that I have spent time on is determining how we can best
secure our food supply, something in which every American has a stake.
My duties as cochair and founder of the bipartisan Food Safety Caucus
have informed my understanding of the importance of the
responsibilities of USDA and FDA alike, giving me the opportunity to
visit slaughter plants and feed lots as well as fruit and vegetable
farms across the country.

{time} 1230

I see food safety as a public health issue. I look forward to finding
ways that can mutually benefit the health of our people, our farms, and
our food supply. In addition, urban areas like New Haven rely on
feeding programs for women, infants and children, for schools, for
seniors, and for some of the disabled living on the edge of poverty.
Yesterday was National Hunger Awareness Day, and our subcommittee is
certainly aware that the President's budget predicted an increase in
the use of food stamps in 2006. Unfortunately, this bill does not
provide enough funding to maintain current participation in the
Commodity Supplemental Food Program. At least 45,000 participants, the
overwhelming majority of older Americans, will have to be dropped from
this program unless there are more funds provided.
Ensuring that these programs are funded is, in my opinion, among the
very serious moral obligations of government. It is my belief that the
bill before us today is more than a list of programs and funding
levels. It is statement of values, of principles and priorities, a
moral document so that when we discuss the bill and how it allocates
$16.8 billion for USDA, I believe we must think of it in those terms.
We should remember that the farm programs and the international trade
promotion and advocacy that help our farmers across the country and
sell our products have profound implications on our Nation's overall
economy and our quality of life, that research programs at USDA are
critical to our efforts to protect our agricultural plant and animal
products, our environment, and our public health.
Unfortunately, in some of these area this bill falls short. I believe
that the President's budget failed to meet the needs of rural America,
decimating rural development programs. This bill makes headway in
reversing cuts made by the President. However, I am concerned that
funding for water and waste grants, for example, remains below the
level of last year's House bill and well below the 2004 bill.
Rural America faces serious economic development challenges:
affordable housing, clean drinking water, sewerage systems, access to
remote educational and medical resources. I am afraid that this funding
shortfall will lead to long-term deficiencies in rural infrastructure.
Of course, this bill covers the funding of one of the most important
agencies in our entire government, the Food and Drug Administration
within the Department of Health and Human Services. FDA oversees some
of the most critical products that our citizens rely on every single
day. The vast majority are processed and fresh foods, except for meat,
poultry, and egg products; our prescription and over-the-counter drugs;
medical devices; our blood supply.
This agency had many problems over the last year, from the recalls of
Bextra and Vioxx to hearings in which its drug safety scientists have
been at odds with the senior management of FDA. It is troubling, very
troubling, that the FDA's acting commissioner was not permitted to come
before our subcommittee to testify this year, and that failure made it
difficult for the committee to make informed decisions.
I thank the chairman for accepting the amendment that I offered in
subcommittee to withhold 5 percent of the funds from the Food and Drug
Administration's central offices until the head of the agency testifies
regarding their budget request. This will not affect food or drug
safety. It will only affect FDA's administrative offices. But I am sure
that it will serve to get the administration's and the leadership of
FDA's attention.
On that same topic, I thank the chairman for working with me to
include funding to double the annual funding for review and direct-to-
consumer ads by FDA, as well as another $5 million for drug safety at
the FDA.
In 2001, the drug industry spent $2.7 billion on direct-to-consumer
advertising, but the FDA office charged with ensuring that those ads
are accurate was funded at less than $1 million, $884,000 to be
precise. Doubling that amount is a small start toward remedying the
inequitable advantage, and the $5 million will be devoted to the most
critical aspects of drug safety.
I find it unfortunate the bill includes a 1-year limitation on
implementation of the country of origin labeling for meat and meat
products. Country of origin labeling would give people the information
they need to make an informed choice to protect the safety of their
families. Thirty-five other countries that we trade with, including
Canada, Mexico, members of the European Union, already have a country
of origin labeling system in place. I believe it is a mistake to not
move forward on implementing country of origin labeling.
On International Food Aid, the subcommittee bill restores $222
million of funds under Public Law 480 that the administration sought to
move to USAID, and I thank the chairman for preventing that move.
However, we remain well below the funding level the past few years for
that critical aid program. This law not only benefits those in dire
need around the world, many of whom are starving to death, it benefits
our farmers and our maritime shippers by utilizing our farm products
and sources of transportation, and I hope that we can bring that
funding level up before this bill becomes law.
I am pleased that the President's proposals to change formula funding
for agriculture research institutions and to alter the funding stream
for the Food and Safety Inspection Service through user fees were not
included in the bill.
I also appreciate the chairman's working with the Democratic members
of the subcommittee to begin to fund last year's Specialty Crop
Competitiveness Act to enhance specialty crops such as fruits,
vegetables, tree nuts, dried fruits, and nursery crops in this bill and
for the Farmers Market Promotion Program, a function that can expand
the farmer-consumer relationship in many areas of our country.
The programs funded through this bill directly impact the everyday
lives of every American, from public health and FDA to rural
development, infrastructure maintenance, environmental

[[Page H4219]]

conservation and preservation, to nutrition assistance at home and
abroad. Failure to adequately invest in these programs will have
serious long-term consequences for our Nation.
Again, I have enjoyed working with the chairman and his staff, and I
believe that we can take pride in the progress we have made in
significantly improving the bill over the proposals that we did receive
from the President.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Farr).
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), chairman of the
subcommittee.
I want to thank the chairman and the gentlewoman from Connecticut
(Ms. DeLauro), ranking member, for their work on this fiscal year 2006
agriculture appropriations bill. I appreciate what they have done with
what they have had to work with. I also want to thank the professional
staff: Martin, Maureen, Leslie, Tom, and Martha. They have done a
tremendous job in putting together a balanced bill.
Mr. Chairman, under our tight budget constraints, we are happy to see
that the USDA CSREES Integrated programs, such as the Section 406
Organic Transition Program, that were moved into the National Research
Initiative are directed to be funded at last year's levels.
As a point of clarification, I would like to verify my understanding
that the committee's intent is that the Organic Transition Program,
although proposed to be funded through the National Research
Initiative, will continue to be managed, as it was in fiscal year 2004
and fiscal year 2005, as part of the Integrated Organic Program.
Specifically, that the request for proposals will continue to be issued
jointly with that of the Organic Research Initiative under the
management of USDA CSREES staff, including the Organic National Program
leader.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FARR. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BONILLA. Yes, Mr. Chairman. It is my understanding that there are
benefits to the Organic Transition Program being managed as part of the
Integrated Organic Program, and my intention is that it should continue
to be managed as it was in fiscal years 2004 and 2005.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for
that clarification, and I appreciate the work he has done.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of our committee.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, as I indicated earlier, I intend to vote for
this bill because I think the gentleman from Texas has done a
reasonable job, given the limitations placed on him by the budget
resolution.
Having said that, I do not want anyone to think that I am
enthusiastic about the result. I am not. I think that after we pass
this bill today the Food and Drug Administration will still be left
with inadequate authority to protect the public health from dangerous
drugs. The FDA will still have a terrible time trying to provide new
labels for drugs which had been initially approved but which later had
been found to be, in some cases, a threat to public health. This
Congress has an obligation to fix that. It is being prevented from
fixing that by the rule that passed earlier today.
Secondly, I want to say that I think the bill is inadequate in a
number of areas. I think that with respect to having a full-fledged
animal identification program to help protect the public health against
problems like Mad Cow disease, I think that the funding for that is
inadequate.
I certainly think that funding for rural sewer and water is grossly
inadequate. There is probably more demand in my district for rural
sewer and water grants than any other program in the Federal budget.
When one lives in a community in which more than 50 percent of the
households are headed either by someone over 65 or by a woman who has
no long work history outside of the home, that means that that
community has very little tax base and very little economic ability to
meet environmental standards for water and sewer, and the Congress is
doing precious little to help those communities.
I think we are also very negligent with respect to rural housing, and
I think that this bill is totally inadequate with respect to
International Food Aid.
There are a number of other concerns I have about it. But those are
the main ones that I would focus on at this moment.
I will vote for the bill because I think the major fault for the
inadequacies of the bill lies with the Committee on the Budget, not
with the gentleman who produced the bill. But I think Members need to
understand this bill is not adequate to meet the economic development
needs of rural America. It is not adequate to meet the environmental
needs of rural America. It is not adequate to meet the public health
requirements of the American people. I wish it were. Maybe some day it
will.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Let me just say that I want to make it clear that what we tried to do
with regard to the Food and Drug Administration was to call attention
to the series of crises that, in fact, have been rampant over the last
several months, whether it is Vioxx or whether it is Bextra or whether
it is the post-marketing studies that were to occur that never did
occur or the slighting, I believe, of our committee in not coming
forward and having the director come before our committee.
What we tried to do is to create a balance, and that is to provide
additional funding for the Office of Drug Safety to look at direct-to-
consumer advertising in order to try to protect the public and to
provide additional funding to create some more infrastructure.
I, too, believe that we should have made in order the amendments
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey). Really what
should be happening is FDA should be coming to the Congress for
authority in order to be able to change the labeling that, in fact,
ultimately protects the public interest and that we ought to have the
opportunity and they ought to come and demand from us authority in
order to do post-marketing surveys about the risks of some of the
products that are on the market. They should be coming to us.
Instead, we want to provide that authority but are not allowed to be
able to do that. I think that it was a mistake for us not to do that,
but I think we need to continue this effort about trying to provide the
agency which has the regulatory power over the pharmaceutical industry
to develop some spine in order to be able to protect the public
interest.

{time} 1245

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the ranking member of
the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies of the Committee on
Appropriations, for yielding me this time in support of H.R. 2744; and
I want to commend and thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla)
and his fine staff for their work on this important bill. We know it is
not easy under the budget constraints, and we appreciate all the work
that has been done.
I especially want to thank and compliment our new ranking member, the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), and her staff for her
efforts to be sure our Nation's diverse needs are met, including in
agriculture, in food safety, in pharmaceutical safety, and all of the
responsibilities this subcommittee has. It has been a privilege for me
to have served as ranking member for several years on this
subcommittee, and I have full confidence that the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) will continue to distinguish herself doing an
outstanding job in this new role as demonstrated by this very
impressive start.
I want to take a brief moment today to raise two issues which are
part of this appropriations bill and thank the

[[Page H4220]]

committee for its support. Two aspects of this legislation will help
rural America produce for the future, produce for the marketplace and
develop expanding markets and be value-added for the benefit of both
producers and consumers as well as for our Nation.
I have been a very strong supporter of bioenergy funding every year
since we first added the first-ever energy title to the farm bill in
the year 2001. It took us to this new century and millenium to envision
a new energy future based on American agriculture. It is amazing it has
been such an uphill struggle to get the Department of Agriculture to
help the farmers of our country pull this new industry forward. Sadly,
it is the Department of Agriculture that has been the most lax in this
partnership.
Every citizen knows America cannot continue importing our fuels. We
must restore energy independence here at home. No group is better
situated to do it immediately than our farmers and ranchers. More
ethanol and biodiesel are being produced each year. America is only
beginning to realize the full potential of American agriculture to help
move America toward energy independence sooner rather than later.
Just yesterday, producers from around our country displayed a broad
array of bio-based products here up on Capitol Hill, ranging from
everything from trash cans to lubricants to carpeting to new materials
to ethanol to soy diesel, all from American agriculture, as we unlock
the mystery of organic chemistry and renewable energy for our future.
The President of the United States has gone to a number of events
around the country claiming he supports biofuels. He was at another one
in Virginia last week. But one of the key facts that the press fails to
report is that the President's budget keeps proposing cuts in the
programs he claims to support. Year after year, we have seen cuts of
$50 million or more proposed in the bioenergy program at the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, which is a very small program. Year after
year, we have to work here in this House and in this Congress to
restore it.
I am very pleased that this bill includes $23 million for section
9006 renewable energy grants and loans. Given the growing support for
this program, I am happy that we were able to obtain the money in the
base bill without the need to offer amendments, as we have had to do
over the past 2 years.
One of the real success stories in American agriculture in recent
years, beyond this effort to try to convert to renewable fuels, has
been the rapid rise of farmers markets and roadside stands across our
country to help our small family and medium-sized farmers direct
market. As cartels take over our food system, this is a way forward for
independent farmers across our country.
These markets are not just in rural areas. They are in urban areas
where there are no big grocery stores. They are in urban areas where
ethnic markets offer great opportunities. They are in urban areas
offering economic development activity that links knowledgeable
consumers with appreciative vendors. They are in suburban areas. In
fact, they are right here behind the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
where we had to fight to get the Department to allow a farmers market
to operate so the millions of tourists who come here every year could
buy products grown in Virginia and Maryland and help our local
producers realize some of that income directly.
We were able to secure, with the help of the gentleman from Texas
(Chairman Bonilla) and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), as part of this bill to begin funding for
the Farmers Market Promotion Program authorized in the farm bill
several years ago. Competitive applications from across the country
will be solicited to help expand the availability of fruits and
vegetables to consumers who want these products but cannot get them as
readily as you might believe. It will help link our farmers to the real
consumer market that they deserve to connect to.
One regret I do have is we were not able to increase funding for the
Seniors Farmers Market Nutrition program, which has shown that linking
senior citizens with area farmers is an absolute win-win for both
nutrition and for American agriculture. The $15 million provided by the
farm bill is only about half of what the Nation is already saying that
it needs. But there is no doubt that this program could expand greatly
in the years to come, and we are going to make every effort to do that.
I look forward to working to help these programs expand to meet the
true need among our Nation's seniors as well as others as we move to
conference and urge support for the fiscal 2006 agriculture
appropriations bill.
Again, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) for his
great composure during committee meetings and his great leadership, and
also the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and congratulate
her for the great job she has done on this bill.
Mr. BONILLA. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
Mr. EMANUEL. Madam Chairman, I thank my colleague from Connecticut
for her great work.
Madam Chairman, this year, just like last year and the year before,
an amendment banning the use of funds to stop reimportation of
prescription drugs has been added to this legislation. It does feel
like Ground Hog Day around here. We all know the next part of the
story. So if you are going to stay up late at night watching C-SPAN,
just put it on TiVo. You do not have to stay up.
Once again, after we pass it here, and we are going to stand and give
our speeches, the conferees from both parties, both Chambers, are going
to go to the conference, and in the dark of night this provision is
going to be stripped from the bill that would help our senior citizens
and our taxpayers get affordable drugs at affordable prices. The
pharmaceutical companies will come in and do their bidding, and this
Congress will turn around and heed their interests.
After the American people have spoken clearly, this Congress last
year when we voted for this overwhelmingly, just as recently as 2 weeks
ago 221 bipartisan Members of Congress sent a letter to the Speaker
asking for an up-or-down vote on this legislation. Here we have an
attempt to make sure that the Congress and the voice of the American
people is clear on the issue of funding for reimportation; and in the
dark of night, mark my words, they will strip this out, as they did
last year, as they did the year before, and Ground Hog Day will come to
the United States Congress.
Instead of using the money and the limited resources we have to help
develop a system to allow for drug reimportation, the FDA has insisted
on using their time and the precious resources of the American people
to crack down on elderly Americans who purchase affordable prescription
drugs from Canada, England, Ireland, and the rest of Europe because
they cannot afford those medications here.
The FDA has even seized the drugs purchased through the State-
sponsored programs like the Illinois I-Save Rx program. As Senator
Frist would say, all we are asking is for an up-or-down vote, and that
is what we would like on reimportation.
Let us listen to the American people, to the will of the bipartisan
Members of Congress and allow a vote on this comprehensive prescription
drug importation legislation this year.
I would like to thank my colleague from Connecticut for her
leadership on this. For the Members who want it to be clear, I would
just hope the American people have an opportunity to watch what happens
in the dark of night so we do not repeat Ground Hog Day around here.
Mr. BONILLA. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), a member of the subcommittee.
Mr. LATHAM. Madam Chairman, first of all I want to thank the
gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) for doing such a great job on
this bill and for his hard work leading the subcommittee through a very
difficult, tight allocation and really coming out with an excellent
bill, and also the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), such a
great ranking Member and true professional. I appreciate that very
much. I also want to express

[[Page H4221]]

my appreciation to the extremely professional staff that we have on the
subcommittee. It really makes our job so much easier.
Like I mentioned, this was a difficult bill with a tight allocation,
and I think we have a very good product in the end here because of
that.
I especially want to point out something I think is very important to
all livestock producers, anyone concerned about food safety, which is
the final $58.8 million going to National Animal Disease Center at
Ames, Iowa. This is the last of the $462 million that we have
appropriated since the year 2000 for this extraordinarily important
facility. I hope this year that the Senate will concur and get their
number so we do not have to revisit this issue again next year with the
appropriation bill.
I am very pleased that the bill includes funding for renewable
energy. Obviously, this is very important for Iowa and our country as
far as soy diesel, ethanol, biomass, all of those things that are
critically important long term as far as gaining energy independence
for the United States, but also doing it in a renewable way that is
environmentally friendly. This is extraordinarily important; and
because of the work we have done here, we are able to finally
experience true value-added agriculture for our farmers at home, so
they are able to reap the profits from renewable energy.
I am very pleased that the chairman has included funding to fight the
potential problem and the very real potential problem of soybean rust
that has gotten into our country, which could be absolutely devastating
to a tremendous crop throughout this country, Iowa and the Midwest in
particular.
I am very pleased also that the bill includes funding for continued
work as far as the Animal ID System that we are trying to get in place
so that we can in fact find when we have an outbreak of, say, mad cow
disease, something like that, that we are able to identify where that
animal came from and that we can ensure the food safety.
One issue that was of some controversy through the hearings was
continued funding under the Hatch Act for agricultural research. I
believe that by continuing the funding of the Hatch Act and getting the
dollars to the universities where they absolutely are needed, the Hatch
Act funding will allow continued vital research at our land grant
universities and allow them to continue the great job that they do for
agriculture, for our farmers today to ensure that the breakthroughs of
the future will be in the hands of the farmers and for their benefit.
Also we have to make sure, and this bill does it, that we have a
continuing, strong Risk Management Crop Insurance program. We all have
concerns about how it has been administered, and we wanted to make sure
that the agency reports to us on a quarterly basis so that we can in
fact make sure that that vital program stays in place.
Again, in closing, I just want to say thank you once again to the
chairman and the ranking member and all the committee staff. This is a
tough year, and it is a great bill. I encourage all of my colleagues
here in the House to support this bill.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Hinchey), a member of the subcommittee.

{time} 1300

Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Chairman, first of all, let me express my
appreciation to the leader on our side on this subcommittee, the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). This is her first year as
the minority rank on this subcommittee, and she is doing an
outstandingly good job, and we all very much appreciate the work that
she is doing.
I also want to express my appreciation to my chairman. He also is
doing a very good job, particularly under a very difficult set of
circumstances; and those difficult set of circumstances are,
particularly, the allocation that this subcommittee has been afforded.
But that, of course, is universally true. All of these subcommittees
have been afforded very small, ineffective allocations, ineffective to
do all the things that need to be done. But, nevertheless, in spite of
that, I think the chairman has done a good job.
There is one aspect of this bill, however, to which I would like to
draw attention, because it is an aspect of the bill that is entirely
deficient and not only deficient but, because of these deficiencies,
the result is a potential for serious harm to a large number of
American citizens. That is the way in which the Food and Drug
Administration is treated in this legislation, and the fact that the
Congress has not provided to the FDA the kinds of authority that it
needs in order to protect the general public against the marketing of
prescription drugs in ways that are causing serious harm to large
numbers of the American people.
Now, recently we have had two experiences, that is, the Nation has
had two experiences, with drugs that have been very difficult and
dangerous. The first is antidepressants and the way that they have been
marketed. They have been marketed largely to people who were targeted
for marketing off-label. A lot of the people who they were marketed to
and who used them were young folks, young people, teenagers. The effect
of these antidepressants on young folks, youngsters, teenagers, people
in their early 20s particularly, has been to engender in them a deep
sense of depression which, in many cases, has led to suicide; and it
has taken us a long time to get attention focused on that problem.
Another example is the so-called Cox-2 inhibitors, or prescriptions
such as Vioxx. Vioxx has presented a major, major problem to consumers
across the country. It is likely that several hundred thousand people,
as a result of the use of Vioxx, have fallen into conditions where
their health has been seriously injured; and it may be, and probably
is, that more than 100,000 people suffered death as a result of the use
of this prescription drug Vioxx.
Now, that comes about as a result of the failure of this Congress to
give the FDA the kind of authority it needs to deal with the drug
companies; and I later in the debate on this legislation will offer two
amendments to deal with this problem.
But, right now, I want to draw the attention of the Members of this
House to this issue. This is a serious issue which affects the health
and safety of the American people in material and very dramatic ways.
It is an issue that is causing the unnecessary death of large numbers
of Americans, and it is an issue that we have not dealt with and should
deal with, and if we do address it properly, it will alleviate this
condition and stop placing so many of American citizens in the kind of
dangerous, desperate circumstances that they have fallen into which
have caused serious injury to their health and death in large numbers
of people.
So what we need to do is to give the Food and Drug Administration the
authority to deal with the pharmaceutical companies in the way that any
regulatory agency would deal with the entity that it is regulating.
For example, in the case of Vioxx, once that drug got on the market
and it became clear that people were being injured as a result of
exposure to it, and the off-label marketing of that drug particularly,
once that became clear, the Food and Drug Administration was not in a
position to tell the drug company that they had to engage in an
educational program which would ensure that people to whom the drug
would be dangerous would not be using it. They could not order the
pharmaceutical company to do anything with regard to the labeling on
that drug. They had to negotiate with the company.
So these are some of the major issues that we are facing, one of the
major deficiencies in this legislation that needs to be addressed, and
I will be offering two amendments later on in the debate, and I hope
that the Members of this Congress will embrace those amendments.
Mr. BONILLA. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chairman, I would like to inquire about how much
time is remaining on both sides.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mrs. Capito). The gentlewoman from Connecticut
has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from Texas has 22\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BONILLA. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski).

[[Page H4222]]

Mr. KANJORSKI. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me
this time, and I want to explain a problem that we discovered as the
bill has been moving through.
Since 1997, by Executive order, a program was created known as the
American Heritage Rivers Initiative. In that program, there are 14
rivers, one of which is the Hudson River in New York State and the
Susquehanna in Pennsylvania. As a combined effort over the last 5 or 6
years, funding for the river navigator has come through the program of
the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Either inadvertently or
otherwise, even though we have had bipartisan support for the support
of these two navigator positions for the Hudson River and the
Susquehanna, the Susquehanna was inadvertently not included in report
language on page 51 of the report, where only the Hudson River is
indicated.
What I would request from the chairman is assurances that during
conference that report language would be amended to include the
Susquehanna River for funding the navigator.
Just as a justification for that, I want to point out that the
Susquehanna River has been designated by American Rivers as one of the
most polluted and endangered rivers in the country. Toward that end,
the navigator presently in place has been involved in two areas:
improving water quality and use, and increased economic development in
the region.
To give my colleagues an example, we are now in the throes of more
than $100 million in projects as a result of the effort of the
navigator position: remodeling an old hotel in downtown Wilkes-Barre on
the waterfront that exceeds $24 million in costs; riverfront
revitalization that is between $25 million and $30 million; a program
of $10 million of the GIS project to include the entire Susquehanna
watershed so that we can work on water quality problems in that area of
the Susquehanna River; and a project, an ongoing project presently of
over $30 million to service the combined sewage overflows into the
Susquehanna River. Without the key leadership of the navigator, we will
lose that $100 or $150 million in projects and return to really zero.
What I am urging the chairman to indicate is his willingness to amend
the report language as this bill proceeds through conference to include
not only the Hudson River but also the Susquehanna River. I may assure
the chairman that we have worked in a very bipartisan effort with
members of the New York delegation and Governor Pataki's office that
both of these river navigator positions should be funded in this bill,
as the other 12 navigators are funded in other appropriations bills
across the country. But to leave out the Susquehanna River, either
inadvertently or by error, would be catastrophic to my congressional
district.
Mr. BONILLA. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KANJORSKI. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BONILLA. Madam Chairman, the gentleman has worked very hard on
this project; and at this time, as chairman, I would like to commit to
trying to resolve this problem to his satisfaction between now and the
conference.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's interest;
and I will rely on the chairman's good faith to accomplish to that end.
As a result, I think we can all say that we have resolved this problem.
Mr. BONILLA. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chairman, I would ask the chairman if he has any
additional speakers.
Mr. BONILLA. Madam Chairman, we have no additional speakers at this
time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the remaining 2\1/2\
minutes to close.
Madam Chairman, as we conclude the general debate, I wanted to
reiterate that it has been a pleasure to work with the gentleman from
Texas (Chairman Bonilla) on the bill. Given limited resources, I think
we have tried to do a good job to meet the needs of rural America, our
Nation's farmers, and other accounts funded in the bill.
As we begin to move through the amendment process, I look forward to
trying to address several areas in the bill that I believe could use
some improvement.
I mentioned earlier the Commodity Supplemental Food Program. A
majority of older Americans, nearly 45,000 participants, will have to
be dropped from this vital program unless more funds are provided.
Also of concern to me is the 1-year limitation on implementation of
country of origin labeling for meat and meat products. Consumers in
this country need the information to make informed decisions for their
safety and the safety of their families, and I hope that the House will
reconsider the country of origin labeling provision in this bill.
Overall, I think that the committee can feel good about the work that
it has done on this legislation thus far. I am hoping that we can look
at an amendment process where we can improve the bill even more in just
a few critical areas.
I would hope that with regard to the Food and Drug Administration
that, in fact, we will be able to provide them with the authorities
that I think the Nation would believe that they desperately need, and
that is to be able to do post-marketing studies on drug products on the
market and also to change labels that would need changing in order to
protect the citizenry of this country.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support
of H.R. 2744.
Madam Chairman, the Chairman and the new Ranking Minority Member of
the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee have done an excellent job
under very difficult circumstances.
Madam Chairman, I support this bill because it will ensure that
important farm bill programs are administered--as well as many of the
important discretionary programs of USDA.
Madam Chairman, the Farm Bill was developed in a responsible,
forward-looking manner. It was devised within the terms of the
Congressional budget, and while it addressed farm income, it also made
substantial investments in research, in conservation, and in enhancing
the nutrition programs that protect the needy.
But because of this Congress' failure to take a similar, forward-
looking approach to government debt, this bill makes deep cuts in those
farm bill programs that were so strongly supported in this House. The
FY 2004 Agriculture Appropriations bill made substantial cuts in Farm
Bill programs, the FY 2005 bill went even farther, and this bill cuts
them even more.
Madam Chairman, the Appropriations Committee can't be blamed for this
situation. They have worked on a bipartisan basis to provide the best
bill possible in a bad situation.
But in order to meet the cap, this bill cuts these mandatory farm
bill programs: the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems;
rural broadband and local television initiatives, the Wetlands Reserve
Program, bioenergy and renewable energy development; the EQIP program,
the Conservation Security Program, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives
Program, the Farmland Protection Program, and others as well
Madam Chairman, the Farm Bill--which was developed in a very
inclusive and bipartisan manner--has been working very well. In fact,
during the time it has been in effect, commodity program spending has
been $15 billion less than originally projected. But our current fiscal
policies are tearing the Farm Bill apart bit by bit. I hope that soon
we can end the partisanship that characterizes fiscal policy and work
together towards a common solution.
Madam Chairman, once again I commend Appropriations Committee members
on both sides for their work on this important bill and I urge my
colleagues to vote for its passage.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Madam Chairman, I rise today to
express my disappointment at the under-funding of the Commodity
Supplemental Food Program under the Agriculture Appropriations bill for
FY 06.
The Commodity Supplemental Food Program is a federal program designed
to improve the health of senior citizens, pregnant women and children
whose income is not enough to pay for nutritious food.
Through this program, seniors, pregnant and breastfeeding women, and
children younger than 5 in 34 States in this country have access to a
monthly basket, which provides them with basic food, such as milk,
rice, pasta, juice, canned vegetables, meat and fish, and cheese.
Each basket is designed to satisfy the specific needs for people who
often have to choose between purchasing food and satisfying other
necessities. Each basket has the purpose of assisting elder people to
stay healthy and active, and children to grow healthy and productive.

[[Page H4223]]

Inadequate funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program would
result in the removal of more than 75,000 people currently
participating in the program. Seniors, women and children in poverty
cannot wait until next year to get adequate funding for the food they
need.
For these reasons, I recommended to the Committee that funding for
the Commodity Supplemental Food Program be increased to $148 million.
Unfortunately, the House appropriation falls far below the amount
necessary. I can only hope that my colleagues in the other Chamber will
approve the adequate funds to avoid this social catastrophe.
By approving increasing fund for this program we will show seniors,
women and children in need, that we care and work for them.
Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Chairman, I rise to speak on the measure before us,
providing budget authority for programming by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture and others. It provides for about 20 percent of total USDA
budget authority. As Chairman of the Budget Committee, I am pleased to
note that this bill is consistent with the levels established in H.
Con. Res. 95, the House concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2006. Overall spending in the bill is $29 million more than the
2005 enacted level and $22 million above the President's request.

department of agriculture

In most areas within USDA, appropriators ended up somewhere between
the President's request and the 2005 enacted level. None of the
President's initiatives to collect $178 million in new or increased
user fees was taken up, making up the difference through spending
reductions in some discretionary programs and through $1.4 billion in
reductions in some mandatory programs authorized for the first time in
the 2002 farm bill.
The bill makes changes in various mandatory programs that reduce net
budget authority by $1.4 billion. Specifically, it reduces budget
authority by about 25 percent for a number of mandatory conservation
programs and eliminates funding for a subset of agricultural research
and rural development programs. While the use of one-year savers in
mandatory programs to stay within the Subcommittee's 302(b) allocation
has become routine, the Agriculture Committee could change some of
these same mandatory programs themselves in order to comply with the
reconciliation instructions in the Fiscal Year 2006 budget resolution.

food and drug administration

H.R. 2744 provides $1.8 billion for the salaries and expenses of the
Food and Drug Administration [FDA], an increase of $55.3 million, or
3.1 percent, above the 2005 enacted level and a decrease of $17.7
million below the President's request. Of the appropriated funds, $357
million is financed from on-going drug, device and animal drug user
fees. Under provisions of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, the FDA
will collect $305 million as user fees to offset part of the costs of
prescription drug approval. This bill provides an increase of $12.4
million for food safety and counter-terrorism activities to ensure
consumers are protected against intentional and accidental risks that
threaten our food supply.
H.R. 2744 does not contain any emergency-designated BA, which is
exempt from budget limits. The bill does rescind $32 million in the
unobligated balances of the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for
Women, Infants, and Children.

iowa concerns

I am particularly pleased that this legislation contains critical
funding for ag and food safety programs in my home state of Iowa.
Specifically, I would like to commend the committee for funding the
completion of the National Centers for Animal Health in Ames, Iowa,
where vital research to keep our nation's food supply safe is being
done everyday. In addition, this bill continues funding for the
Agriculture-Based Industrial Lubricants (ABIL) program at the
University of Northern Iowa in my Congressional district. The ABIL
program continues to promote value-added and environmentally safe
agriculture products.
As we continue the appropriations season, I commend Chairman Lewis
and our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for meeting the
needs of the American public within the framework established by the
budget resolution. In conclusion, I express my support for H.R. 2744.
Mr. DeLAURO. Madam Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. BONILLA. Madam Chairman, in the interest of moving forward and
moving to the amendment process, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule. During consideration of the bill for
amendment, the Chair may accord priority in recognition to a Member
offering an amendment that he has printed in the designated place in
the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 2744

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2006, and for other purposes, namely:

TITLE I

AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

Office of the Secretary

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary of
Agriculture, $5,127,000: Provided, That not to exceed $11,000
of this amount shall be available for official reception and
representation expenses, not otherwise provided for, as
determined by the Secretary.

Executive Operations

chief economist

For necessary expenses of the Chief Economist, including
economic analysis, risk assessment, cost-benefit analysis,
energy and new uses, and the functions of the World
Agricultural Outlook Board, as authorized by the Agricultural
Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1622g), $10,539,000.

National Appeals Division

For necessary expenses of the National Appeals Division,
$14,524,000.

Office of Budget and Program Analysis

For necessary expenses of the Office of Budget and Program
Analysis, $8,298,000.

Homeland Security Staff

For necessary expenses of the Homeland Security Staff,
$934,000.

Office of the Chief Information Officer

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief
Information Officer, $16,462,000.

Common Computing Environment

For necessary expenses to acquire a Common Computing
Environment for the Natural Resources Conservation Service,
the Farm and Foreign Agricultural Service, and Rural
Development mission areas for information technology,
systems, and services, $124,580,000, to remain available
until expended, for the capital asset acquisition of shared
information technology systems, including services as
authorized by 7 U.S.C. 6915-16 and 40 U.S.C. 1421-28:
Provided, That obligation of these funds shall be consistent
with the Department of Agriculture Service Center
Modernization Plan of the county-based agencies, and shall be
with the concurrence of the Department's Chief Information
Officer.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Bonilla

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Bonilla:
On page 3, line 12, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(decreased by $40,000,000)'';
On page 30, line 19, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(decreased by $20,000,000)'';
On page 33, line 2, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $20,000,000)'';
On page 44, line 1, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $40,000,000)''; and
On page 44, line 10, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $40,000,000)''.

Mr. BONILLA (during the reading). Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BONILLA. Madam Chairman, I would like to briefly explain the
amendment and the purpose of the amendment.
First of all, the amendment cuts $40 million from the Common
Computing Environment account and increases the value-added market
development grants by $40 million. The amendment also reduces the
Conservation Operations account by $20 million, and it increases the
Watershed Rehabilitation account by the same amount.
I understand that Members may have some concern with these
transactions that we are involved with here, but the reason that we are
doing this today is to accommodate some legitimate concerns raised by
the authorizing committee about some of the mandatory limitations in
this bill. I have worked closely with the gentleman from Virginia
(Chairman Goodlatte) over the years, and I intend to work with him
closely in the future, especially as he prepares to write a new farm
bill. While I would have preferred to keep the CCE account funded at
the highest level possible, I am confident that when we get to the
conference with the Senate that we will be able to restore funding to
this account.

[[Page H4224]]

So let us keep this funding moving forward, and I ask for Members'
support on this amendment. It is my understanding that the minority has
agreed to this amendment, so we hope to expedite debate.

{time} 1315

The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mrs. Capito). Is there further debate on the
amendment?
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Bonilla).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Butterfield

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Butterfield:
Page 3, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.
Page 17, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $1,875,000)''.

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Madam Chairman, I bring this amendment to the floor
today on behalf of myself, the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca),
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), and the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Scott) in order to provide much needed financial assistance to our
Nation's minority farmers, and to the 1890 Land Grant Colleges and
Universities.
While I generally support this legislation, it falls short, in my
estimation, in the area of funding for rural development. We must,
Madam Chairwoman, offer more outreach and more technical assistance to
our farmers. During fiscal year 1983, President Reagan initiated the
Small Farmer Outreach Training and Technical Assistance program in
response to the USDA task force on black farm ownership.
It reflected a commitment to implement Reagan's Presidential
Executive Order 123-20 dated September 15, 1981, to support
Historically Black Colleges and Universities by addressing the many
civil rights issues that are confronted by the agency.
This is the only program, the only program implemented by the USDA
that directly helps minority farmers who are losing their farms at a
rate that far exceeds their white counterparts. I, therefore, Madam
Chairman, urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. BONILLA. Madam Chairman, we are willing to accept this amendment
and move forward.
Mr. BACA. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
Butterfield-Scott-Baca-Reyes amendment.
This amendment increases the funding to the 2501 Socially
Disadvantaged Farmer and Rancher program by $2 million from $5.935
million to $7.935 million.
These grants are meant to provide outreach and technical assistance
to encourage and assist socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers to
own and operate farms and ranches and participate in agricultural
programs.
This assistance includes information on application and bidding
procedures, farm managements, and other essential information to
participate in agricultural programs.
These grants may also be awarded to Hispanic Serving Institutions,
Tribal Colleges and Historically Black Colleges and Universities that
engage in outreach to minority farmers.
This program helps to mitigate a long history of unequal treatment of
minority farmers and ranchers.
The USDA has already paid over $1 billion to settle discrimination
lawsuits. By investing in the 2501 program, we can improve
relationships between the USDA and socially disadvantaged farmers and
prevent future lawsuits.
This is a small investment that could potentially save millions in
the future.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Butterfield-Scott-Baca
amendment.
Mr. REYES. Madam Chairman,, I rise in strong support of the
Butterfield Amendment, which would add $2 million to the USDA's Small
Farmer Outreach Training and Technical Assistance Program.
As a young man growing up in the El Paso Upper Valley Community of
Canutillo, I experienced the many challenges that small and medium
farmers face daily. My grandfather, father and close family members
contributed to the operation of the family farms in the El Paso and
Dell City Valley, Texas.
Also, throughout my tenure in Congress, I have met with many minority
farmers from my Congressional District of El Paso, Texas. These
Hispanic farmers have faced many challenges. Outreach, training, and
technical assistance are essential to help them succeed in today's
challenging agriculture economy.
Unfortunately, while Hispanics are the fastest-growing population in
the country, they remain a disadvantaged minority when it comes to
having the resources to own and farm our nation's land. Farming and
ranching are full time, 24 hour, seven day endeavors, and our small and
disadvantaged farmers and ranchers merit our consideration and
assistance. Adequate funding for this program would provide the farmers
with technical, farm management, and marketing assistance, all of which
are important to keeping our farmers productive on their land.
The Small Farmer Outreach Training and Technical Assistance Program
has made a great impact in the El Paso and Las Cruces region, and
without the proper funding for the program I fear our farmers will be
lacking the means to succeed. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me
in supporting our nation's minority farmers by ensuring the passage of
this important amendment, and I appreciate the efforts of Mr.
Butterfield and others on this important issue.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Hinojosa

Mr. HINOJOSA. Madam Chairman, I offer amendment No. 4 on behalf of
the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Hinojosa:
Under the heading ``Common Computing Environment'', insert
after the dollar amount the following: ``(reduced by
$855,000)''.

Under the headings ``Cooperative State Research, Education,
and Extension Service'' and ``Research and Education
Activities'', insert after the first dollar amount, and after
the dollar amount relating to an education grants program for
Hispanic-serving Institutions, the following: ``(increased by
$855,000)''.

Mr. HINOJOSA. Madam Chairman, I am offering this amendment on behalf
of myself and my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).
I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla),
and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro),
for putting together this bipartisan bill.
I believe this amendment will be an important improvement. The Baca/
Hinojosa amendment would take $855,000 from the Common Computing
Environment program and transfer it to the Hispanic Serving
Institutions Education grant program under the Cooperative State
Research Education and Extension Service.
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 agriculture, scientific and professional work
force. This program is making a difference in the Latino community.
Coastal Bend Community College in Beeville, Texas has used its USDA/HSI
grant to improve retention, expand and strengthen the agriculture
curriculum, engage high school students in agriculture-related fields
through dual enrollment programs, and increase the number of
articulation agreements with area universities like Texas A&M at
Kingsville and many universities throughout the country and the
territories!
Although Title VIII of the Farm Bill authorizes $20 million for this
program, actual appropriations remain at only 28 percent of the
authorized level.
Only 2.7 percent of HSI college graduates earn a degree in
agriculture-related areas. The continued underrepresentation of
Hispanics in these important areas of agriculture demands a greater
investment in such programs to expand funding to additional HSIs to
better meet USDA goals.
With over 200 HSIs, serving over 1.4 million students, it is time to
increase the appropriations for this program beyond current levels. Our
amendment is a modest step in that direction.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. BONILLA. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HINOJOSA. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BONILLA. Madam Chairman, the gentleman has worked very hard on
this important issue, which is very important to students around the
country; and we would be happy to accept the amendment and move forward
and move it to a vote if the gentleman would like.
Mr. HINOJOSA. I would accept that. If the gentleman from Texas will
accept the amendment, I will.

[[Page H4225]]

Mr. BACA. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this amendment,
which I have introduced with my colleague Congressman Hinojosa.
This amendment provides an additional $855,000 in funding for grants
to Hispanic Serving Institutions, which are colleges and universities
with at least 25 percent Hispanic enrollment. The funding will be
offset from the Common Computing Environment, which is funded at $130
million.
This account was funded at $5.6 million last year. The appropriations
act for Fiscal Year 2006 funds the account at $5.645 million, only
$45,000 more than last year's level. The Baca-Hinojosa amendment will
bring this funding to $6.5 million, the amount requested by the
Congressional Hispanic Caucus.
This funding is given out on a competitive basis to Hispanic Serving
Institutions for agricultural research. These grants increase the
ability of colleges and universities to serve Hispanic and low-income
students. In my own district, California State University San
Bernardino has benefited from these funds in the past.
Forty-one percent of all USDA research project proposals from HSIs
are funded, a remarkable success rate for proposal acceptance. Clearly,
this is a great resource that needs to be further funded to reach its
true potential.
Other important institutions that serve minority communities each
receive more than double the funding of HISs. We must ensure that HSIs
are funded at the same level as other similar programs.
I commend Chairman Bonilla for his effort to gradually increase
funding for Hispanic Serving Institutions. However, an inequity still
remains and must be corrected.
If this Congress is going to be dedicated to providing a top-quality
education for all students in America, then we need to ensure that we
fully fund HSIs and other institutions that reach out to our
underserved communities.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Baca-Hinojosa amendment.
Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Chairman, I rise today, in support of the Baca-
Hinojosa amendment to the agriculture appropriation bill to increase
funding for Hispanic serving institutions.
This increase would grant additional funding for 193 of our Nation's
Hispanic serving colleges and universities who are committed to
ensuring greater Hispanic representation in higher education in the
U.S.
There are 54 Hispanic serving institutions in my home State of
California, and in my congressional district, which ranks among the
highest in agriculture producing districts in the country, there are
four Hispanic serving institutions. One Hispanic serving institution in
particular that will benefit is UC Merced, an exceptional research
institution committed to reducing under-representation of valley
students in the fields of agricultural sciences and natural resources.
Madam Chairman, I support an increase in ag-related educational
funding. I believe that it will not only benefit my district but also
the agricultural education and production of our country on a whole.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Weiner

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Weiner:
Page 3, line 12, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(reduced by $21,000,000)''.
Page 18, line 12, after the first dollar amount, insert
the following: ``(increased by $18,885,000)''.

Mr. WEINER. Madam Chairman, pictured on this chart is an Asian long-
horned beetle. This is one of the many pests that are under the
responsibility of APHIS, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service. This is an insect that bores its way into trees, primarily in
Illinois, in the northeast, and kills them.
There is no way to stop this pest except by cutting down the tree.
And we in New York and in New Jersey and Illinois have had to chop down
a lot of them.
What my amendment will do is to increase the funding for APHIS, to
bring it up to the level that the Bush administration proposed in their
preliminary budget. It is estimated that the amendment that we are
offering today with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter) and my
colleagues from New York and others around the country, by increasing
by $19 million, we will wind up preventing more than $700 billion worth
of damage to trees throughout the country.
This is not just a problem that will be solved for the Asian long-
horned beetle. If you have the emerald ash borer in Indiana, Ohio or
Michigan, or in the Pacific Coast, or suffer from sudden oak death in
California or Oregon, or are dealing with the glassy-winged
sharpshooter in California, or of course boll weevils throughout the
South, all of these are pests which are having a dramatic impact on our
economy, or is having a budget cut in this round to an unacceptable
level.
First let me say of the chairman and the ranking member, they are
doing a lot with less and less. The staffs of both the minority and
majority side should be commended for taking a very small allocation
and trying to make it as best they can. However, what my amendment will
do is it will take a program that essentially does the computing and
data processing part of the Agriculture Department and moves it into
dealing with these pests.
Obviously, I would like not to have to cut any part of the
Agriculture Department, but this is an offset that works. We found,
when this House weighed into this debate in the past and increased
funding through an amendment on the floor, we wound up having a
substantial positive impact. When the Asian long-horn beetle was first
kind of discovered in 1999 here in the east coast, there were 2,500
trees that were affected. It was down to just 66 in 2004.
Unfortunately, that downward trend has recently been reversed.
This, the House bill that we are considering today, allocates $22
million less for APHIS than President Bush had requested. The Nature
Conservancy, which studies the impact of pests like the Asian long-horn
beetles, says that we really need a $44 million increase. We are not
going to be able to get a $44 million increase in this bill.
What the amendment does is try to reach a point that we at least
start to win the battle again, start to lead to a reduction in the
amount of trees that are infected, not only by the Asian long-horn
beetle, but by the emerald ash borer and others that I mentioned.
There is hardly a State in the Union that has not found its trees
impacted by these pernicious insects. APHIS has been an effective way
to reverse the course. A combination of research and remediation has
proven that the dollars spent on these things turn out to be
extraordinarily helpful. Whether it is the cactus moth or the gypsy
moth in Washington-Oregon, I would urge my colleagues in virtually
every State of the Union to look to see if you have an insect that
represents a pest that is impacting not only the trees in the abstract
sense of our environment, but also our economy.
There is hardly a State in the Union that would not benefit from this
amendment. As I said, I believe that the ranking member, the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), and the chairman, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), deserve great credit for how they
have done more with less. We are making a minor change to increase the
funding for APHIS by $19 million to allow even more work.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter), who is sponsoring this
amendment with some of us in the New York and New Jersey delegation, is
detained. He is expected on the floor shortly, but he represents, as so
many other Members do, a bipartisan effort to make sure that insects
like this are vanquished once and for all.
Mr. BONILLA. Madam Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.
Although I certainly understand and share the concerns that many
Members have about plant, pests and diseases that devastate crops and
trees, I must say that we have done our absolute best to fund
eradication and control of plant pests in the bill that you see before
you today.
Funding includes, among other things, for the Asian long-horn beetle,
it is at $15.3 million. Also, across the country, the glassy-winged
sharpshooter, 24 million; the emerald ash borer, 14 million; Citrus
canker, $36 million, very important to our Members in Florida. And the
list goes on.
Emerging plant pests alone are funded at over $100 million in this
bill. In addition, tens of millions of dollars go to fund programs to
stop Medfly, the boll weevil, brucellosis, the gypsy moth, and many
others. Every Member has some interest represented. And we

[[Page H4226]]

have carefully balanced things out so that agriculture is best
protected, and that is what we all want.
Those are the appropriated amounts, and when there is an emergency
situation, the Secretary has authority to use funds from the Commodity
Credit Corporation for eradication and control. For sudden oak death,
an additional $9 million was approved this year, and requests are
pending for 11 million for the emerald ash borer and $5 million for the
glassy-winged sharpshooter.
We are watching the use of emergency funds closely. There is no way
that appropriated dollars substitute for the emergency funding that
these agriculture emergencies demand. I am also very concerned about
the amendment due to the offset proposed to cut the common computing
environment. I do oppose this amendment once again and urge a ``no''
vote.
Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I rise in support of the Weiner/McCotter amendment and really urge
all of my colleagues to join them in this important issue. Their
amendment would merely add $19 million to the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service and raise it to the level that the President put in
his own budget.
This would attack all types of invasive species, including the sudden
oak death, the glassy-winged sharpshooter; but I would like to focus on
this terrible Asian long-horn beetle, which has had a devastating
economic and environmental impact in New York State. The Asian long-
horn beetle was first discovered in 1995 in Green Point, Brooklyn, in
the district that I represent.
We had to cut down every single tree in one of our beautiful parks in
Brooklyn, and really cut down trees in a whole section of Brooklyn in
an attempt to contain this terrible invasive species, which we do not
know how to get rid of. The one approach that we have now is once you
discover it, you have to literally chop down the tree, cut it into
small pieces and burn it.
That is the only way they know how to get rid of this terrible bug.
Regrettably, the Asian long-horn beetle moved into Queens and into
Manhattan. There was a tremendous effort from the city, State and
Federal Government to contain it, to keep it out of Central Park, which
is many people's favorite spot in New York; yet, regrettably, 2 months
ago, the beetle was spotted in Central Park.
We have had to chop down over 4,000 trees in New York City in our
attempts to contain this invasive species.

{time} 1330

We need to contain it in New York City. If it moves into upper New
York and to the Northeast, it could destroy literally all of the trees;
and it is a problem that really all of us should be concerned about.
Believe me, my colleagues do not want this invasive species in their
State. Work with us in supporting this amendment to contain it and
other invasive species that are found in our country.
Our amendment merely raises the amount to the amount that President
Bush put in the budget, and it is an investment in the economy and the
environment of our State. I urge my colleagues to support the Weiner-
McCotter amendment.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Unfortunately,
plant diseases are continuously emerging; and they can threaten not
only our agriculture but our environment and our public health. I think
that in Connecticut, for instance, I will talk about sudden oak death,
which has been identified recently. We are looking at potentially
massive deforestation, and we are working hard at the New Haven
Experiment Station to cooperate on research on the plant disease before
our forests of Connecticut are heavily impacted.
We all know the results of massive deforestation: Bad for our land
conservation, bad for our environment, and it contributes to the
lowering of, the actual lowering of our air quality.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Weiner/
McCotter amendment. We need to boost federal funding to fight the
invasive species that are destroying native trees across the United
States.
This amendment would provide an additional $19 million to help fight
invasive species like the Asian longhorn beetle, the emerald ash borer,
and the boll weevil. If you've never heard of these insects, or have
never lost a tree in your district to these invaders, count yourself
lucky. The emerald ash borer has been simply devastating to ash trees
in my district in Southeast Michigan. The borer is native to China and
was only discovered in the United States in 2002, but already it has
killed more than 7 million ash trees. The emerald ash borer arrived in
North America years earlier, so we have a huge job on our hands to
contain this insect and stop its spread.
I can't overemphasize how destructive this small green insect is.
Once it gets underneath the bark of an ash tree, the borer will kill
the tree within a couple years. All species of ash trees are
vulnerable. It is sobering to see so many beautiful trees that have
stood in neighborhoods for decades become sick and die. It is also
extremely costly to homeowners and communities to remove the ash trees
and replace them.
By working quickly, we've managed to significantly slow the spread of
the emerald ash borer, but people need to understand that every ash
tree in the country is at risk if we don't contain this insect now. So
far, the infestation has been limited to Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and
Ontario. To give you some idea of the dimension of the threat, there
are 750 million ash trees in Michigan alone, and 7.5 billion ash trees
nationwide. We need to make additional resources available now to fight
the emerald ash borer, or there will be a much higher price to pay down
the road.
I urge the House to support the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mrs. Capito). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
The question was taken, and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. WEINER. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Weiner) will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Office of the Chief Financial Officer

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer, $5,874,000: Provided, That the Chief Financial
Officer shall actively market and expand cross-servicing
activities of the National Finance Center: Provided further,
That no funds made available by this appropriation may be
obligated for FAIR Act or Circular A-76 activities until the
Secretary has submitted to the Committees on Appropriations
of both Houses of Congress and the Committee on Government
Reform of the House of Representatives a report on the
Department's contracting out policies, including agency
budgets for contracting out.

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights

For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, $811,000.

Office of Civil Rights

For necessary expenses of the Office of Civil Rights,
$20,109,000.

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration

For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Administration, $676,000.

Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments

(including transfers of funds)

For payment of space rental and related costs pursuant to
Public Law 92-313, including authorities pursuant to the 1984
delegation of authority from the Administrator of General
Services to the Department of Agriculture under 40 U.S.C.
486, for programs and activities of the Department which are
included in this Act, and for alterations and other actions
needed for the Department and its agencies to consolidate
unneeded space into configurations suitable for release to
the Administrator of General Services, and for the operation,
maintenance, improvement, and repair of Agriculture buildings
and facilities, and for related costs, $183,133,000, to
remain available until expended, as follows: for payments to
the General Services Administration and the Department of
Homeland Security for building security, $147,734,000, and
for buildings operations and maintenance, $35,399,000:
Provided, That amounts which are made available for space
rental and related costs for the Department of Agriculture in
this Act may be transferred between such appropriations to
cover the costs of additional, new, or replacement space 15
days after notice thereof is transmitted to the
Appropriations Committees of both Houses of Congress.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Platts

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

[[Page H4227]]

Amendment offered by Mr. Platts:
Page 5, line 8, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(reduced by $2,650,000)''.
Page 5, line 13, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(reduced by $2,650,000)''.
Page 18, line 12, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(increased by $1,227,000)''.
Mr. PLATTS. Madam Chairman, this amendment I offer would increase
funding for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, APHIS, by
$1.227 million for the purpose of eradicating plum pox disease. This
funding effort would allow for the total amount of funding for this
program at APHIS to be $3.443 million, the same level that was
appropriated in fiscal year 2005.
The amendment I offer is important to the fruit growers both in
Pennsylvania and across our Nation. It would help to bring an end to
the most significant and destructive virus that affects our stone fruit
grower, plum pox. The virus is extremely damaging to fruit production.
The plum pox virus is capable of causing disease in fruits such as
peaches, plums, apricots, nectarines, sweet and sour cherries. Tree
yields can be severely affected. Some reports claim 80 to 100 percent
premature fruit drop in some plum varieties. Infected fruit may be
unsightly and difficult to sell as table fruit. Export of fruit is
difficult; export of budwood and nursery stock is next to impossible.
With the discovery of plum pox virus in Pennsylvania in September of
1999, a survey and eradication program was put in place. Through 5
years of survey, research and control action, the program has been
successful in both containing and almost completely eradicating the
virus. In fact, in 2004, for the first time no plum pox virus was found
outside of existing quarantine areas. Three years of negative data in
several of these quarantine areas allowed the rescinding of those
quarantines. After 5 years of testing, no plum pox virus has been found
in the United States outside the remaining quarantine zone in
Pennsylvania.
Although we have made considerable progress, the virus is still
present. As evidence of the virus' persistence, on June 3 of this year,
last week, the Pennsylvania Secretary of Agriculture announced the
discovery of plum pox virus in Adams County once again. Both the
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture and the United States Department
of Agriculture are currently following the standard procedures to
survey and quarantine the area in question.
Level fund for the plum pox virus program at APHIS will likely
eradicate this virus from both Pennsylvania and the United States,
thereby being a smart Federal investment. Without adequate funding, the
plum pox virus program will not be able to complete an appropriate
survey and the associated procedures, which in turn will leave
questions about the status of the virus. Eradication of the virus may
not be completed and the possibility of virus spreading beyond the
quarantine area will be left open.
Complete eradication of the plum pox virus, on the other hand, will
allow U.S. stone fruits and nursery industries to continue operating
without further impairment by this virus menace.
Level funding, as this amendment proposes, is critical to helping to
eradicate this devastating disease once and for all.
Mr. WEINER. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Madam Chairman, I commend the gentleman for acknowledging what I
think we all should in the last amendment, that we are not giving
funding, sufficient funding to this APHIS account.
Now the gentleman's amendment does not speak to plum pox because that
would be legislating, so I would encourage the gentleman to support my
amendment which we just voted on here because it would permit plum pox.
That was one of the many pests on the list that would be increased in
that case.
But I commend the gentleman. He is exactly right. Just like in the
gentleman's district, in the gentleman's State, just like in New York,
just like in Louisiana with imported fire ants, just like in Texas with
the Mexican fruit fly, just like in California with the Mediterranean
fruit fly, this is an underfunded area. We will never get it what they
probably should ultimately get, but at least we should give them a
little more, and I think the gentleman is exactly right.
Plum pox, Asian long horn beetle, this is another reason why I hope
all of my colleagues will support the amendment that we just voted down
and will be having a recorded vote on later.
Mr. BONILLA. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition the gentleman's
amendment.
This is a very important issue, and we tried our best to fund it at
the appropriate level. I have had discussions with the gentleman about
trying to work with him as we move to conference to attempt to increase
this line item somewhat, to address the problem that the gentleman is
addressing in a very sincere way here today.
Mr. PLATTS. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BONILLA. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the difficult fiscal
times we are in. The gentleman and his staff have done a great job of
trying to balance all the concerns, and certainly I appreciate the
gentleman's efforts and his staff's efforts to address this specific
concern. I look forward to working with the gentleman as we go to
conference with the Senate. In light of that effort, when we get to
conference, I will be glad withdraw the amendment at the time and work
with the gentleman and his staff in the months to come.
Mr. BONILLA. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. PLATTS. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
Mr. WEINER. Madam Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would
ask the author of the amendment that would increase by $1 million, does
he intend to support the amendment that was just passed that would
increase the account that he wants to solve the problem in by $19
million?
Mr. PLATTS. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WEINER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. PLATTS. I will be glad to take a more in-depth look at that
amendment. I think we all have a shared purpose, but we will look at
the specifics of the amendment.
Mr. WEINER. Madam Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Hazardous Materials Management

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

For necessary expenses of the Department of Agriculture, to
comply with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) and
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et
seq.), $15,644,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That appropriations and funds available herein to
the Department for Hazardous Materials Management may be
transferred to any agency of the Department for its use in
meeting all requirements pursuant to the above Acts on
Federal and non-Federal lands.

Departmental Administration

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

For Departmental Administration, $23,103,000, to provide
for necessary expenses for management support services to
offices of the Department and for general administration,
security, repairs and alterations, and other miscellaneous
supplies and expenses not otherwise provided for and
necessary for the practical and efficient work of the
Department: Provided, That this appropriation shall be
reimbursed from applicable appropriations in this Act for
travel expenses incident to the holding of hearings as
required by 5 U.S.C. 551-558.

Office of the Assistant Secretary for

Congressional Relations

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations to carry out
the programs funded by this Act, including programs involving
intergovernmental affairs and liaison within the executive
branch, $3,821,000: Provided, That these funds may be
transferred to agencies of the Department of Agriculture
funded by this Act to maintain personnel at the agency level:
Provided further, That no funds made available by this
appropriation may be obligated after 30 days from the date of
enactment of this Act, unless the Secretary has notified the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress on
the allocation of these funds by USDA agency: Provided
further, That no

[[Page H4228]]

other funds appropriated to the Department by this Act shall
be available to the Department for support of activities of
congressional relations.

Office of Communications

For necessary expenses to carry out services relating to
the coordination of programs involving public affairs, for
the dissemination of agricultural information, and the
coordination of information, work, and programs authorized by
Congress in the Department, $9,509,000: Provided, That not to
exceed $2,000,000 may be used for farmers' bulletins.

Office of the Inspector General

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Inspector
General, including employment pursuant to the Inspector
General Act of 1978, $79,626,000, including such sums as may
be necessary for contracting and other arrangements with
public agencies and private persons pursuant to section
6(a)(9) of the Inspector General Act of 1978, and including
not to exceed $125,000 for certain confidential operational
expenses, including the payment of informants, to be expended
under the direction of the Inspector General pursuant to
Public Law 95-452 and section 1337 of Public Law 97-98.

Office of the General Counsel

For necessary expenses of the Office of the General
Counsel, $38,439,000.

Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics

For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics to
administer the laws enacted by the Congress for the Economic
Research Service, the National Agricultural Statistics
Service, the Agricultural Research Service, and the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service,
$598,000.

Economic Research Service

For necessary expenses of the Economic Research Service in
conducting economic research and analysis, as authorized by
the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627)
and other laws, $75,931,000.

National Agricultural Statistics Service

For necessary expenses of the National Agricultural
Statistics Service in conducting statistical reporting and
service work, including crop and livestock estimates,
statistical coordination and improvements, marketing surveys,
and the Census of Agriculture, as authorized by 7 U.S.C.
1621-1627 and 2204g, and other laws, $136,241,000, of which
up to $29,115,000 shall be available until expended for the
Census of Agriculture.

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses to enable the Agricultural Research
Service to perform agricultural research and demonstration
relating to production, utilization, marketing, and
distribution (not otherwise provided for); home economics or
nutrition and consumer use including the acquisition,
preservation, and dissemination of agricultural information;
and for acquisition of lands by donation, exchange, or
purchase at a nominal cost not to exceed $100, and for land
exchanges where the lands exchanged shall be of equal value
or shall be equalized by a payment of money to the grantor
which shall not exceed 25 percent of the total value of the
land or interests transferred out of Federal ownership,
$1,035,475,000: Provided, That appropriations hereunder shall
be available for the operation and maintenance of aircraft
and the purchase of not to exceed one for replacement only:
Provided further, That appropriations hereunder shall be
available pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2250 for the construction,
alteration, and repair of buildings and improvements, but
unless otherwise provided, the cost of constructing any one
building shall not exceed $375,000, except for headhouses or
greenhouses which shall each be limited to $1,200,000, and
except for 10 buildings to be constructed or improved at a
cost not to exceed $750,000 each, and the cost of altering
any one building during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10
percent of the current replacement value of the building or
$375,000, whichever is greater: Provided further, That the
limitations on alterations contained in this Act shall not
apply to modernization or replacement of existing facilities
at Beltsville, Maryland: Provided further, That
appropriations hereunder shall be available for granting
easements at the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center:
Provided further, That the foregoing limitations shall not
apply to replacement of buildings needed to carry out the
Act of April 24, 1948 (21 U.S.C. 113a): Provided further,
That funds may be received from any State, other political
sub-division, organization, or individual for the purpose
of establishing or operating any research facility or
research project of the Agricultural Research Service, as
authorized by law: Provided further, That the Secretary,
through the Agricultural Research Service, or successor,
is authorized to lease approximately 40 acres of land at
the Central Plains Experiment Station, Nunn, Colorado, to
the Board of Governors of the Colorado State University
System, for its Shortgrass Steppe Biological Field
Station, on such terms and conditions as the Secretary
deems in the public interest: Provided further, That the
Secretary understands that it is the intent of the
University to construct research and educational buildings
on the subject acreage and to conduct agricultural
research and educational activities in these buildings:
Provided further, That as consideration for a lease, the
Secretary may accept the benefits of mutual cooperative
research to be conducted by the Colorado State University
and the Government at the Shortgrass Steppe Biological
Field Station: Provided further, That the term of any
lease shall be for no more than 20 years, but a lease may
be renewed at the option of the Secretary on such terms
and conditions as the Secretary deems in the public
interest.
None of the funds appropriated under this heading shall be
available to carry out research related to the production,
processing, or marketing of tobacco or tobacco products.

Buildings and Facilities

For acquisition of land, construction, repair, improvement,
extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or
facilities as necessary to carry out the agricultural
research programs of the Department of Agriculture, where not
otherwise provided, $87,300,000, to remain available until
expended.

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

Research and Education Activities

For payments to agricultural experiment stations, for
cooperative forestry and other research, for facilities, and
for other expenses, $661,691,000, as follows: to carry out
the provisions of the Hatch Act of 1887 (7 U.S.C. 361a-i),
$178,807,000; for grants for cooperative forestry research
(16 U.S.C. 582a through a-7), $22,255,000; for payments to
the 1890 land-grant colleges, including Tuskegee University
and West Virginia State University (7 U.S.C. 3222),
$37,704,000, of which $1,507,496 shall be made available only
for the purpose of ensuring that each institution shall
receive no less than $1,000,000; for special grants for
agricultural research (7 U.S.C. 450i(c)), $92,064,000; for
special grants for agricultural research on improved pest
control (7 U.S.C. 450i(c)), $15,038,000; for competitive
research grants (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)), $214,634,000; for the
support of animal health and disease programs (7 U.S.C.
3195), $5,057,000; for supplemental and alternative crops and
products (7 U.S.C. 3319d), $1,187,000; for grants for
research pursuant to the Critical Agricultural Materials Act
(7 U.S.C. 178 et seq.), $1,102,000, to remain available until
expended; for the 1994 research grants program for 1994
institutions pursuant to section 536 of Public Law 103-382 (7
U.S.C. 301 note), $1,000,000, to remain available until
expended; for rangeland research grants (7 U.S.C. 3333),
$1,000,000; for higher education graduate fellowship grants
(7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(6)), $4,500,000, to remain available until
expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b); for higher education challenge
grants (7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(1)), $5,500,000; for a higher
education multicultural scholars program (7 U.S.C.
3152(b)(5)), $998,000, to remain available until expended (7
U.S.C. 2209b); for an education grants program for Hispanic-
serving Institutions (7 U.S.C. 3241), $5,645,000; for
noncompetitive grants for the purpose of carrying out all
provisions of 7 U.S.C. 3242 (section 759 of Public Law 106-
78) to individual eligible institutions or consortia of
eligible institutions in Alaska and in Hawaii, with funds
awarded equally to each of the States of Alaska and Hawaii,
$2,997,000; for a secondary agriculture education program and
2-year post-secondary education (7 U.S.C. 3152(j)),
$1,000,000; for aquaculture grants (7 U.S.C. 3322),
$3,968,000; for sustainable agriculture research and
education (7 U.S.C. 5811), $12,400,000; for a program of
capacity building grants (7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(4)) to colleges
eligible to receive funds under the Act of August 30, 1890 (7
U.S.C. 321-326 and 328), including Tuskegee University and
West Virginia State University, $12,312,000, to remain
available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b); for payments to
the 1994 Institutions pursuant to section 534(a)(1) of Public
Law 103-382, $2,250,000; for resident instruction grants for
insular areas under section 1491 of the National Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7
U.S.C. 3363), $500,000; and for necessary expenses of
Research and Education Activities, $39,773,000, of which
$2,750,000 for the Research, Education, and Economics
Information System and $2,173,000 for the Electronic Grants
Information System, are to remain available until expended.
None of the funds appropriated under this heading shall be
available to carry out research related to the production,
processing, or marketing of tobacco or tobacco products:
Provided, That this paragraph shall not apply to research on
the medical, biotechnological, food, and industrial uses of
tobacco.

Native American Institutions Endowment Fund

For the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund
authorized by Public Law 103-382 (7 U.S.C. 301 note),
$12,000,000, to remain available until expended.

Extension Activities

For payments to States, the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, Micronesia, Northern
Marianas, and American Samoa, $444,871,000, as follows:
payments for cooperative extension work under the Smith-Lever
Act, to be distributed under sections 3(b) and 3(c) of said
Act, and under section 208(c) of Public Law 93-471, for
retirement and employees' compensation costs for extension
agents, $275,940,000; payments for extension work at the 1994
Institutions under the Smith-Lever Act (7 U.S.C. 343(b)(3)),
$3,273,000; payments for the nutrition and family education
program for low-income areas under section 3(d) of the Act,

[[Page H4229]]

$62,409,000; payments for the pest management program under
section 3(d) of the Act, $10,000,000; payments for the farm
safety program under section 3(d) of the Act, $4,563,000;
payments for New Technologies for Ag Extension under section
3(d) of the Act, $1,000,000; payments to upgrade research,
extension, and teaching facilities at the 1890 land-grant
colleges, including Tuskegee University and West Virginia
State University, as authorized by section 1447 of Public Law
95-113 (7 U.S.C. 3222b), $16,777,000, to remain available
until expended; payments for youth-at-risk programs under
section 3(d) of the Smith-Lever Act, $7,978,000; for youth
farm safety education and certification extension grants, to
be awarded competitively under section 3(d) of the Act,
$444,000; payments for carrying out the provisions of the
Renewable Resources Extension Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 1671 et
seq.), $4,060,000; payments for Indian reservation agents
under section 3(d) of the Smith-Lever Act, $1,996,000;
payments for sustainable agriculture programs under section
3(d) of the Act, $4,067,000; payments for rural health and
safety education as authorized by section 502(i) of Public
Law 92-419 (7 U.S.C. 2662(i)), $1,965,000; payments for
cooperative extension work by the colleges receiving the
benefits of the second Morrill Act (7 U.S.C. 321-326 and 328)
and Tuskegee University and West Virginia State University,
$33,868,000, of which $1,724,884 shall be made available
only for the purpose of ensuring that each institution
shall receive no less than $1,000,000; and for necessary
expenses of Extension Activities, $16,531,000.

Integrated Activities

For the integrated research, education, and extension
grants programs, including necessary administrative expenses,
$15,513,000, as follows: for a competitive international
science and education grants program authorized under section
1459A of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3292b), to remain
available until expended, $1,000,000; for grants programs
authorized under section 2(c)(1)(B) of Public Law 89-106, as
amended, $1,000,000, to remain available until September 30,
2007 for the critical issues program, and $1,513,000 for the
regional rural development centers program; and $12,000,000
for the Food and Agriculture Defense Initiative authorized
under section 1484 of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Act of 1977, to remain available
until September 30, 2007.

Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers

For grants and contracts pursuant to section 2501 of the
Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7
U.S.C. 2279), $5,935,000, to remain available until expended.

Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs

For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs to
administer programs under the laws enacted by the Congress
for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; the
Agricultural Marketing Service; and the Grain Inspection,
Packers and Stockyards Administration; $724,000.

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE

Salaries and Expenses

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary to
prevent, control, and eradicate pests and plant and animal
diseases; to carry out inspection, quarantine, and regulatory
activities; and to protect the environment, as authorized by
law, $823,635,000, of which $4,140,000 shall be available for
the control of outbreaks of insects, plant diseases, animal
diseases and for control of pest animals and birds to the
extent necessary to meet emergency conditions; of which
$38,634,000 shall be used for the boll weevil eradication
program for cost share purposes or for debt retirement for
active eradication zones; of which $33,340,000 shall be
available for a National Animal Identification program:
Provided, That no funds shall be used to formulate or
administer a brucellosis eradication program for the current
fiscal year that does not require minimum matching by the
States of at least 40 percent: Provided further, That this
appropriation shall be available for the operation and
maintenance of aircraft and the purchase of not to exceed
four, of which two shall be for replacement only: Provided
further, That, in addition, in emergencies which threaten any
segment of the agricultural production industry of this
country, the Secretary may transfer from other appropriations
or funds available to the agencies or corporations of the
Department such sums as may be deemed necessary, to be
available only in such emergencies for the arrest and
eradication of contagious or infectious disease or pests of
animals, poultry, or plants, and for expenses in accordance
with sections 10411 and 10417 of the Animal Health Protection
Act (7 U.S.C. 8310 and 8316) and sections 431 and 442 of the
Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7751 and 7772), and any
unexpended balances of funds transferred for such emergency
purposes in the preceding fiscal year shall be merged with
such transferred amounts: Provided further, That
appropriations hereunder shall be available pursuant to law
(7 U.S.C. 2250) for the repair and alteration of leased
buildings and improvements, but unless otherwise provided the
cost of altering any one building during the fiscal year
shall not exceed 10 percent of the current replacement value
of the building:
In fiscal year 2006, the agency is authorized to collect
fees to cover the total costs of providing technical
assistance, goods, or services requested by States, other
political subdivisions, domestic and international
organizations, foreign governments, or individuals, provided
that such fees are structured such that any entity's
liability for such fees is reasonably based on the technical
assistance, goods, or services provided to the entity by the
agency, and such fees shall be credited to this account, to
remain available until expended, without further
appropriation, for providing such assistance, goods, or
services.

Buildings and Facilities

For plans, construction, repair, preventive maintenance,
environmental support, improvement, extension, alteration,
and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities, as authorized
by 7 U.S.C. 2250, and acquisition of land as authorized by 7
U.S.C. 428a, $4,996,000, to remain available until expended.

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE

Marketing Services

For necessary expenses to carry out services related to
consumer protection, agricultural marketing and distribution,
transportation, and regulatory programs, as authorized by
law, and for administration and coordination of payments to
States, $78,032,000, including funds for the wholesale market
development program for the design and development of
wholesale and farmer market facilities for the major
metropolitan areas of the country: Provided, That this
appropriation shall be available pursuant to law (7 U.S.C.
2250) for the alteration and repair of buildings and
improvements, but the cost of altering any one building
during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10 percent of the
current replacement value of the building.
Fees may be collected for the cost of standardization
activities, as established by regulation pursuant to law (31
U.S.C. 9701).

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Not to exceed $65,667,000 (from fees collected) shall be
obligated during the current fiscal year for administrative
expenses: Provided, That if crop size is understated and/or
other uncontrollable events occur, the agency may exceed this
limitation by up to 10 percent with notification to the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.

Funds for Strengthening Markets, Income, and Supply (Section 32)

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Funds available under section 32 of the Act of August 24,
1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c), shall be used only for commodity
program expenses as authorized therein, and other related
operating expenses, except for: (1) transfers to the
Department of Commerce as authorized by the Fish and Wildlife
Act of August 8, 1956; (2) transfers otherwise provided in
this Act; and (3) not more than $16,055,000 for formulation
and administration of marketing agreements and orders
pursuant to the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937
and the Agricultural Act of 1961.

Payments to States and Possessions

For payments to departments of agriculture, bureaus and
departments of markets, and similar agencies for marketing
activities under section 204(b) of the Agricultural Marketing
Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1623(b)), $1,347,000.

GRAIN INSPECTION, PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ADMINISTRATION

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the
United States Grain Standards Act, for the administration of
the Packers and Stockyards Act, for certifying procedures
used to protect purchasers of farm products, and the
standardization activities related to grain under the
Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, $38,400,000: Provided,
That this appropriation shall be available pursuant to law (7
U.S.C. 2250) for the alteration and repair of buildings and
improvements, but the cost of altering any one building
during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10 percent of the
current replacement value of the building.

Limitation on Inspection and Weighing Services Expenses

Not to exceed $42,463,000 (from fees collected) shall be
obligated during the current fiscal year for inspection and
weighing services: Provided, That if grain export activities
require additional supervision and oversight, or other
uncontrollable factors occur, this limitation may be exceeded
by up to 10 percent with notification to the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.

Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety

For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Under Secretary for Food Safety to administer the laws
enacted by the Congress for the Food Safety and Inspection
Service, $590,000.

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses to carry out services authorized by
the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products
Inspection Act, and the Egg Products Inspection Act,
including not to exceed $50,000 for representation allowances
and for expenses pursuant to section 8 of the Act approved
August 3, 1956 (7 U.S.C. 1766), $837,264,000, of which no
less than $756,152,000 shall be available for

[[Page H4230]]

Federal food safety inspection; and in addition, $1,000,000
may be credited to this account from fees collected for the
cost of laboratory accreditation as authorized by section
1327 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of
1990 (7 U.S.C. 138f): Provided, That of the total amount made
available under this heading, no less than $20,653,000 shall
be obligated for regulatory and scientific training: Provided
further, That this appropriation shall be available pursuant
to law (7 U.S.C. 2250) for the alteration and repair of
buildings and improvements, but the cost of altering any one
building during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10 percent
of the current replacement value of the building.

Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural
Services

For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services to
administer the laws enacted by Congress for the Farm Service
Agency, the Foreign Agricultural Service, the Risk Management
Agency, and the Commodity Credit Corporation, $635,000.

FARM SERVICE AGENCY

Salaries and Expenses

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

For necessary expenses for carrying out the administration
and implementation of programs administered by the Farm
Service Agency, $1,023,738,000: Provided, That the Secretary
is authorized to use the services, facilities, and
authorities (but not the funds) of the Commodity Credit
Corporation to make program payments for all programs
administered by the Agency: Provided further, That other
funds made available to the Agency for authorized activities
may be advanced to and merged with this account.

State Mediation Grants

For grants pursuant to section 502(b) of the Agricultural
Credit Act of 1987, as amended (7 U.S.C. 5101-5106),
$4,250,000.

Dairy Indemnity Program

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

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

Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

For gross obligations for the principal amount of direct
and guaranteed farm ownership (7 U.S.C. 1922 et seq.) and
operating (7 U.S.C. 1941 et seq.) loans, Indian tribe land
acquisition loans (25 U.S.C. 488), and boll weevil loans (7
U.S.C. 1989), to be available from funds in the Agricultural
Credit Insurance Fund, as follows: farm ownership loans,
$1,600,000,000, of which $1,400,000,000 shall be for
guaranteed loans and $200,000,000 shall be for direct loans;
operating loans, $2,116,256,000, of which $1,200,000,000
shall be for unsubsidized guaranteed loans, $266,256,000
shall be for subsidized guaranteed loans and $650,000,000
shall be for direct loans; Indian tribe land acquisition
loans, $2,020,000; and for boll weevil eradication program
loans, $100,000,000: Provided, That the Secretary shall deem
the pink bollworm to be a boll weevil for the purpose of boll
weevil eradication program loans.
For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, including the
cost of modifying loans as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as follows: farm ownership
loans, $16,960,000, of which $6,720,000 shall be for
guaranteed loans, and $10,240,000 shall be for direct loans;
operating loans, $134,317,000, of which $36,360,000 shall be
for unsubsidized guaranteed loans, $33,282,000 shall be for
subsidized guaranteed loans, and $64,675,000 shall be for
direct loans; and Indian tribe land acquisition loans,
$81,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $305,127,000, of
which $297,127,000 shall be transferred to and merged with
the appropriation for ``Farm Service Agency, Salaries and
Expenses''.
Funds appropriated by this Act to the Agricultural Credit
Insurance Program Account for farm ownership and operating
direct loans and guaranteed loans may be transferred among
these programs: Provided, That the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress are notified at
least 15 days in advance of any transfer.

RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY

Administrative and Operating Expenses

For administrative and operating expenses, as authorized by
section 226A of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization
Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6933), $77,806,000: Provided, That not
to exceed $1,000 shall be available for official reception
and representation expenses, as authorized by 7 U.S.C.
1506(i).

Corporations

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

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund

For payments as authorized by section 516 of the Federal
Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1516), such sums as may be
necessary, to remain available until expended.

Commodity Credit Corporation Fund

REIMBURSEMENT FOR NET REALIZED LOSSES

For the current fiscal year, such sums as may be necessary
to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for net
realized losses sustained, but not previously reimbursed,
pursuant to section 2 of the Act of August 17, 1961 (15
U.S.C. 713a-11): Provided, That of the funds available to the
Commodity Credit Corporation under section 11 of the
Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714i) for
the conduct of its business with the Foreign Agricultural
Service, up to $5,000,000 may be transferred to and used by
the Foreign Agricultural Service for information resource
management activities of the Foreign Agricultural Service
that are not related to Commodity Credit Corporation
business.

HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT

(LIMITATION ON EXPENSES)

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

TITLE II

CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment

For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment to
administer the laws enacted by the Congress for the Forest
Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service,
$744,000.

NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE

Conservation Operations

For necessary expenses for carrying out the provisions of
the Act of April 27, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 590a-f), including
preparation of conservation plans and establishment of
measures to conserve soil and water (including farm
irrigation and land drainage and such special measures for
soil and water management as may be necessary to prevent
floods and the siltation of reservoirs and to control
agricultural related pollutants); operation of conservation
plant materials centers; classification and mapping of soil;
dissemination of information; acquisition of lands, water,
and interests therein for use in the plant materials
program by donation, exchange, or purchase at a nominal
cost not to exceed $100 pursuant to the Act of August 3,
1956 (7 U.S.C. 428a); purchase and erection or alteration
or improvement of permanent and temporary buildings; and
operation and maintenance of aircraft, $793,640,000, to
remain available until March 31, 2007, of which not less
than $10,457,000 is for snow survey and water forecasting,
and not less than $10,547,000 is for operation and
establishment of the plant materials centers, and of which
not less than $27,312,000 shall be for the grazing lands
conservation initiative: Provided, That appropriations
hereunder shall be available pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2250 for
construction and improvement of buildings and public
improvements at plant materials centers, except that the
cost of alterations and improvements to other buildings
and other public improvements shall not exceed $250,000:
Provided further, That when buildings or other structures
are erected on non-Federal land, that the right to use
such land is obtained as provided in 7 U.S.C. 2250a:
Provided further, That this appropriation shall be
available for technical assistance and related expenses to
carry out programs authorized by section 202(c) of title
II of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of
1974 (43 U.S.C. 1592(c)): Provided further, That qualified
local engineers may be temporarily employed at per diem
rates to perform the technical planning work of the
Service.

Watershed Surveys and Planning

For necessary expenses to conduct research, investigation,
and surveys of watersheds of rivers and other waterways, and
for small watershed investigations and planning, in
accordance with the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention
Act (16 U.S.C. 1001-1009), $7,026,000.

Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations

For necessary expenses to carry out preventive measures,
including but not limited to research, engineering
operations, methods of cultivation, the growing of
vegetation, rehabilitation of existing works and changes in
use of land, in accordance with the Watershed Protection and
Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1001-1005 and 1007-1009), the
provisions of the Act of April 27, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 590a-f),
and in accordance with the provisions of laws relating to the
activities of the Department, $60,000,000, to remain
available until expended; of which up to $10,000,000 may be
available for the watersheds authorized under the Flood
Control Act (33 U.S.C.

[[Page H4231]]

701 and 16 U.S.C. 1006a): Provided, That not to exceed
$25,000,000 of this appropriation shall be available for
technical assistance: Provided further, That not to exceed
$1,000,000 of this appropriation is available to carry out
the purposes of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Public
Law 93-205), including cooperative efforts as contemplated by
that Act to relocate endangered or threatened species to
other suitable habitats as may be necessary to expedite
project construction.

Watershed Rehabilitation Program

For necessary expenses to carry out rehabilitation of
structural measures, in accordance with section 14 of the
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C.
1012), and in accordance with the provisions of laws relating
to the activities of the Department, $27,000,000, to remain
available until expended.

Resource Conservation and Development

For necessary expenses in planning and carrying out
projects for resource conservation and development and for
sound land use pursuant to the provisions of sections 31 and
32 of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (7 U.S.C. 1010-1011;
76 Stat. 607); the Act of April 27, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 590a-f);
and subtitle H of title XV of the Agriculture and Food Act of
1981 (16 U.S.C. 3451-3461), $51,360,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That the Secretary shall enter into
a cooperative or contribution agreement, within 45 days of
enactment of this Act, with a national association regarding
a Resource Conservation and Development program and such
agreement shall contain the same matching, contribution
requirements, and funding level, set forth in a similar
cooperative or contribution agreement with a national
association in fiscal year 2002: Provided further, That not
to exceed $3,411,000 shall be available for national
headquarters activities.

TITLE III

RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development

For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Under Secretary for Rural Development to administer programs
under the laws enacted by the Congress for the Rural Housing
Service, the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, and the
Rural Utilities Service of the Department of Agriculture,
$627,000.

Rural Community Advancement Program

(including transfers of funds)

For the cost of direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants,
as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1926, 1926a, 1926c, 1926d, and
1932, except for sections 381E-H and 381N of the Consolidated
Farm and Rural Development Act, $657,389,000, to remain
available until expended, of which $38,006,000 shall be for
rural community programs described in section 381E(d)(1) of
such Act; of which $531,162,000 shall be for the rural
utilities programs described in sections 381E(d)(2),
306C(a)(2), and 306D of such Act, of which not to exceed
$500,000 shall be available for the rural utilities program
described in section 306(a)(2)(B) of such Act, and of which
not to exceed $1,000,000 shall be available for the rural
utilities program described in section 306E of such Act; and
of which $88,221,000 shall be for the rural business and
cooperative development programs described in sections
381E(d)(3) and 310B(f) of such Act: Provided, That of the
total amount appropriated in this account, $24,000,000 shall
be for loans and grants to benefit Federally Recognized
Native American Tribes, including grants for drinking water
and waste disposal systems pursuant to section 306C of such
Act, of which $4,000,000 shall be available for community
facilities grants to tribal colleges, as authorized by
section 306(a)(19) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act, and of which $250,000 shall be available for
a grant to a qualified national organization to provide
technical assistance for rural transportation in order to
promote economic development: Provided further, That of the
amount appropriated for rural community programs, $6,200,000
shall be available for a Rural Community Development
Initiative: Provided further, That such funds shall be used
solely to develop the capacity and ability of private,
nonprofit community-based housing and community development
organizations, low-income rural communities, and Federally
Recognized Native American Tribes to undertake projects to
improve housing, community facilities, community and economic
development projects in rural areas: Provided further, That
such funds shall be made available to qualified private,
nonprofit and public intermediary organizations proposing to
carry out a program of financial and technical assistance:
Provided further, That such intermediary organizations shall
provide matching funds from other sources, including Federal
funds for related activities, in an amount not less than
funds provided: Provided further, That of the amount
appropriated for the rural business and cooperative
development programs, not to exceed $500,000 shall be made
available for a grant to a qualified national organization to
provide technical assistance for rural transportation in
order to promote economic development; $1,000,000 shall be
for grants to the Delta Regional Authority (7 U.S.C. 1921 et
seq.) for any purpose under this heading: Provided further,
That of the amount appropriated for rural utilities programs,
not to exceed $25,000,000 shall be for water and waste
disposal systems to benefit the Colonias along the United
States/Mexico border, including grants pursuant to section
306C of such Act; not to exceed $17,500,000 shall be for
technical assistance grants for rural water and waste
systems pursuant to section 306(a)(14) of such Act, unless
the Secretary makes a determination of extreme need, of
which $5,600,000 shall be for Rural Community Assistance
Programs; and not to exceed $14,000,000 shall be for
contracting with qualified national organizations for a
circuit rider program to provide technical assistance for
rural water systems: Provided further, That of the total
amount appropriated, not to exceed $21,367,000 shall be
available through June 30, 2006, for authorized
empowerment zones and enterprise communities and
communities designated by the Secretary of Agriculture as
Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones; of which $1,067,000
shall be for the rural community programs described in
section 381E(d)(1) of such Act, of which $12,000,000 shall
be for the rural utilities programs described in section
381E(d)(2) of such Act, and of which $8,300,000 shall be
for the rural business and cooperative development
programs described in section 381E(d)(3) of such Act:
Provided further, That any prior year balances for high
cost energy grants authorized by section 19 of the Rural
Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901(19)) shall be
transferred to and merged with the ``Rural Utilities
Service, High Energy Costs Grants Account''.

RURAL DEVELOPMENT

Salaries and Expenses

(including transfers of funds)

For necessary expenses for carrying out the administration
and implementation of programs in the Rural Development
mission area, including activities with institutions
concerning the development and operation of agricultural
cooperatives; and for cooperative agreements; $152,623,000:
Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law,
funds appropriated under this section may be used for
advertising and promotional activities that support the Rural
Development mission area: Provided further, That not more
than $10,000 may be expended to provide modest nonmonetary
awards to non-USDA employees: Provided further, That any
balances available from prior years for the Rural Utilities
Service, Rural Housing Service, and the Rural Business-
Cooperative Service salaries and expenses accounts shall be
transferred to and merged with this appropriation.

RURAL HOUSING SERVICE

Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account

(including transfers of funds)

For gross obligations for the principal amount of direct
and guaranteed loans as authorized by title V of the Housing
Act of 1949, to be available from funds in the rural housing
insurance fund, as follows: $4,821,832,000 for loans to
section 502 borrowers, as determined by the Secretary, of
which $1,140,799,000 shall be for direct loans, and of which
$3,681,033,000 shall be for unsubsidized guaranteed loans;
$35,969,000 for section 504 housing repair loans;
$100,000,000 for section 515 rental housing; $100,000,000 for
section 538 guaranteed multi-family housing loans; $5,000,000
for section 524 site loans; $11,500,000 for credit sales of
acquired property, of which up to $1,500,000 may be for
multi-family credit sales; and $5,048,000 for section 523
self-help housing land development loans.
For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, including the
cost of modifying loans, as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as follows: section 502
loans, $170,837,000, of which $129,937,000 shall be for
direct loans, and of which $40,900,000, to remain available
until expended, shall be for unsubsidized guaranteed loans;
section 504 housing repair loans, $10,521,000; section 515
rental housing, $45,880,000; section 538 multi-family housing
guaranteed loans, $5,420,000; multi-family credit sales of
acquired property, $681,000; and section 523 self-help
housing and development loans, $52,000: Provided, That of the
total amount appropriated in this paragraph, $2,500,000 shall
be available through June 30, 2006, for authorized
empowerment zones and enterprise communities and communities
designated by the Secretary of Agriculture as Rural Economic
Area Partnership Zones.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $455,242,000,
which shall be transferred to and merged with the
appropriation for ``Rural Development, Salaries and
Expenses''.

Rental Assistance Program

For rental assistance agreements entered into or renewed
pursuant to the authority under section 521(a)(2) or
agreements entered into in lieu of debt forgiveness or
payments for eligible households as authorized by section
502(c)(5)(D) of the Housing Act of 1949, $650,026,000; and,
in addition, such sums as may be necessary, as authorized by
section 521(c) of the Act, to liquidate debt incurred prior
to fiscal year 1992 to carry out the rental assistance
program under section 521(a)(2) of the Act: Provided, That of
this amount, $5,900,000 shall be available for debt
forgiveness or payments for eligible households as authorized
by section 502(c)(5)(D) of the Act, and not to exceed $20,000
per project for advances to non-profit organizations or
public agencies to cover direct costs (other than purchase
price) incurred in purchasing projects pursuant to section
502(c)(5)(C) of the Act: Provided further, That agreements

[[Page H4232]]

entered into or renewed during the current fiscal year shall
be funded for a four-year period: Provided further, That any
unexpended balances remaining at the end of such four-year
agreements may be transferred and used for the purposes of
any debt reduction; maintenance, repair, or rehabilitation of
any existing projects; preservation; and rental assistance
activities authorized under title V of the Act.

Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants

For grants and contracts pursuant to section 523(b)(1)(A)
of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1490c), $34,000,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That of the total
amount appropriated, $1,000,000 shall be available through
June 30, 2006, for authorized empowerment zones and
enterprise communities and communities designated by the
Secretary of Agriculture as Rural Economic Area Partnership
Zones.

Rural Housing Assistance Grants

For grants and contracts for very low-income housing
repair, supervisory and technical assistance, compensation
for construction defects, and rural housing preservation made
by the Rural Housing Service, as authorized by 42 U.S.C.
1474, 1479(c), 1490e, and 1490m, $41,000,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That of the total amount
appropriated, $1,200,000 shall be available through June 30,
2006, for authorized empowerment zones and enterprise
communities and communities designated by the Secretary of
Agriculture as Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones.

Farm Labor Program Account

For the cost of direct loans, grants, and contracts, as
authorized by 42 U.S.C. 1484 and 1486, $32,728,000, to remain
available until expended, for direct farm labor housing loans
and domestic farm labor housing grants and contracts.

RURAL BUSINESS-COOPERATIVE SERVICE

Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

For the principal amount of direct loans, as authorized by
the Rural Development Loan Fund (42 U.S.C. 9812(a)),
$34,212,000.
For the cost of direct loans, $14,718,000, as authorized by
the Rural Development Loan Fund (42 U.S.C. 9812(a)), of which
$1,724,000 shall be available through June 30, 2006, for
Federally Recognized Native American Tribes and of which
$3,449,000 shall be available through June 30, 2006, for the
Delta Regional Authority (7 U.S.C. 1921 et seq.): Provided,
That such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans,
shall be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That of the total
amount appropriated, $887,000 shall be available through June
30, 2006, for the cost of direct loans for authorized
empowerment zones and enterprise communities and communities
designated by the Secretary of Agriculture as Rural Economic
Area Partnership Zones.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
direct loan programs, $4,719,000 shall be transferred to and
merged with the appropriation for ``Rural Development,
Salaries and Expenses''.

Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account

(Including Rescission of funds)

For the principal amount of direct loans, as authorized
under section 313 of the Rural Electrification Act, for the
purpose of promoting rural economic development and job
creation projects, $25,003,000.
For the cost of direct loans, including the cost of
modifying loans as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, $4,993,000, to remain
available until expended.
Of the funds derived from interest on the cushion of credit
payments in the current fiscal year, as authorized by section
313 of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, $18,877,000
shall not be obligated and $18,877,000 are rescinded.

Rural Cooperative Development Grants

For rural cooperative development grants authorized under
section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932), $24,000,000, of which
$500,000 shall be for cooperative research agreements; and of
which $2,500,000 shall be for cooperative agreements for the
appropriate technology transfer for rural areas program:
Provided, That not to exceed $1,000,000 shall be for
cooperatives or associations of cooperatives whose primary
focus is to provide assistance to small, minority producers
and whose governing board and/or membership is comprised of
at least 75 percent minority; and of which not to exceed
$15,500,000, to remain available until expended, shall be for
value-added agricultural product market development grants,
as authorized by section 6401 of the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 1621 note).

Rural Empowerment Zones and Enterprise

Community Grants

For grants in connection with second and third rounds of
empowerment zones and enterprise communities, $10,000,000, to
remain available until expended, for designated rural
empowerment zones and rural enterprise communities, as
authorized by the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 and the Omnibus
Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act,
1999 (Public Law 105-277): Provided, That of the funds
appropriated, $1,000,000 shall be made available to third
round empowerment zones, as authorized by the Community
Renewal Tax Relief Act (Public Law 106-554).

Renewable Energy Program

For the cost of a program of direct loans, loan guarantees,
and grants, under the same terms and conditions as authorized
by section 9006 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act
of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8106), $23,000,000 for direct and
guaranteed renewable energy loans and grants: Provided, That
the cost of direct loans and loan guarantees, including the
cost of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section
502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Rural Electrification and Telecommunications

Loans Program Account

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Insured loans pursuant to the authority of section 305 of
the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 935) shall be
made as follows: 5 percent rural electrification loans,
$100,000,000; municipal rate rural electric loans,
$100,000,000; loans made pursuant to section 306 of that Act,
rural electric, $2,100,000,000; Treasury rate direct electric
loans, $1,000,000,000; guaranteed under-writing loans
pursuant to section 313A, $1,000,000,000; 5 percent rural
telecommunications loans, $145,000,000; cost of money rural
telecommunications loans, $424,000,000; and for loans made
pursuant to section 306 of that Act, rural telecommunications
loans, $125,000,000.
For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, including the cost of
modifying loans, of direct and guaranteed loans authorized by
sections 305 and 306 of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936
(7 U.S.C. 935 and 936), as follows: cost of rural electric
loans, $6,160,000, and the cost of telecommunications loans,
$212,000: Provided, That notwithstanding section 305(d)(2) of
the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, borrower interest
rates may exceed 7 percent per year.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $38,907,000
which shall be transferred to and merged with the
appropriation for ``Rural Development, Salaries and
Expenses''.

Rural Telephone Bank Program Account

(including transfer of funds)

The Rural Telephone Bank is hereby authorized to make such
expenditures, within the limits of funds available to such
corporation in accord with law, and to make such contracts
and commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as
provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control
Act, as may be necessary in carrying out its authorized
programs.
For administrative expenses, including audits, necessary to
continue to service existing loans, $2,500,000, which shall
be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for
``Rural Development, Salaries and Expenses''.
Of the unobligated balances from the Rural Telephone Bank
Liquidating Account, $2,500,000 shall not be obligated and
$2,500,000 are rescinded.

Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program

For the principal amount of direct distance learning and
telemedicine loans, $50,000,000; and for the principal amount
of direct broadband telecommunication loans, $463,860,000.
For the cost of direct loans and grants for telemedicine
and distance learning services in rural areas, as authorized
by 7 U.S.C. 950aaa et seq., $25,750,000, to remain available
until expended, of which $750,000 shall be for direct loans:
Provided, That the cost of direct loans shall be as defined
in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
For the cost of broadband loans, as authorized by 7 U.S.C.
901 et seq., $9,973,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That the interest rate for such loans shall be the
cost of borrowing to the Department of the Treasury for
obligations of comparable maturity: Provided further, That
the cost of direct loans shall be as defined in section 502
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
In addition, $9,000,000, to remain available until
expended, for a grant program to finance broadband
transmission in rural areas eligible for Distance Learning
and Telemedicine Program benefits authorized by 7 U.S.C.
950aaa.

TITLE IV

DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS

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

For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services to
administer the laws enacted by the Congress for the Food and
Nutrition Service, $599,000.

FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE

Child Nutrition Programs

(including transfers of funds)

For necessary expenses to carry out the National School
Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.), except section 21, and
the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.),
except sections 17 and 21; $12,412,027,000, to remain
available through September 30, 2007, of which $7,224,406,000
is hereby appropriated and $5,187,621,000 shall be derived by
transfer from funds available under section 32 of the Act of
August 24, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c): Provided, That none of the
funds made available

[[Page H4233]]

under this heading shall be used for studies and evaluations:
Provided further, That up to $5,235,000 shall be available
for independent verification of school food service claims.

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children
(WIC)

For necessary expenses to carry out the special
supplemental nutrition program as authorized by section 17 of
the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786),
$5,257,000,000, to remain available through September 30,
2007: Provided, That of the total amount available, the
Secretary shall obligate not less than $15,000,000 for a
breastfeeding support initiative in addition to the
activities specified in section 17(h)(3)(A): Provided
further, That only the provisions of section 17(h)(10)(B)(i)
shall be effective in 2006; including $14,000,000 for the
purposes specified in section 17(h)(10)(B)(i): Provided
further, That none of the funds made available under this
heading shall be used for studies and evaluations: Provided
further, That none of the funds in this Act shall be
available to pay administrative expenses of WIC clinics
except those that have an announced policy of prohibiting
smoking within the space used to carry out the program:
Provided further, That none of the funds provided in this
account shall be available for the purchase of infant formula
except in accordance with the cost containment and
competitive bidding requirements specified in section 17 of
such Act: Provided further, That on or after October 1, 2005,
or the date of enactment of this act, whichever is later, any
individual seeking certification or recertification for
benefits under the income eligibility provisions of section
17(d)(2)(iii) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 shall meet
such eligibility requirements only if the income, as
determined under title XIX of the Social Security Act, of the
individual or the family of which the individual is a member
is less than 250 percent of the applicable nonfarm income
poverty guideline: Provided further, That none of the funds
provided shall be available for activities that are not fully
reimbursed by other Federal Government departments or
agencies unless authorized by section 17 of such Act.

Food Stamp Program

For necessary expenses to carry out the Food Stamp Act (7
U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), $40,711,395,000, of which
$3,000,000,000 to remain available through September 30,
2007, shall be placed in reserve for use only in such amounts
and at such times as may become necessary to carry out
program operations: Provided, That none of the funds made
available under this heading shall be used for studies and
evaluations: Provided further, That funds provided herein
shall be expended in accordance with section 16 of the Food
Stamp Act: Provided further, That this appropriation shall be
subject to any work registration or workfare requirements as
may be required by law: Provided further, That funds made
available for Employment and Training under this heading
shall remain available until expended, as authorized by
section 16(h)(1) of the Food Stamp Act: Provided further,
That notwithstanding section 5(d) of the Food Stamp Act of
1977, any additional payment received under chapter 5 of
title 37, United States Code, by a member of the United
States Armed Forces deployed to a designated combat zone
shall be excluded from household income for the duration of
the member's deployment if the additional pay is the result
of deployment to or while serving in a combat zone, and it
was not received immediately prior to serving in the combat
zone.

Commodity Assistance Program

For necessary expenses to carry out disaster assistance and
the commodity supplemental food program as authorized by
section 4(a) of the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act
of 1973 (7 U.S.C. 612c note); the Emergency Food Assistance
Act of 1983; special assistance (in a form determined by the
Secretary of Agriculture) for the nuclear affected islands,
as authorized by section 103(f)(2) of the Compact of Free
Association Amendments Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-188); and
the Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, as authorized by
section 17(m) of the Child Nutrition Act of
1966, $178,797,000, to remain available through September
30, 2007: Provided, That none of these funds shall be
available to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation
for commodities donated to the program: Provided further,
That notwithstanding any other provision of law, effective
with funds made available in fiscal year 2006 to support
the Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, as
authorized by section 4402 of Public Law 107-171, such
funds shall remain available through September 30, 2007.

Nutrition Programs Administration

For necessary administrative expenses of the domestic
nutrition assistance programs funded under this Act,
$140,761,000.

TITLE V

FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE

Salaries and Expenses

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

For necessary expenses of the Foreign Agricultural Service,
including carrying out title VI of the Agricultural Act of
1954 (7 U.S.C. 1761-1768), market development activities
abroad, and for enabling the Secretary to coordinate and
integrate activities of the Department in connection with
foreign agricultural work, including not to exceed $158,000
for representation allowances and for expenses pursuant to
section 8 of the Act approved August 3, 1956 (7 U.S.C. 1766),
$148,224,000: Provided, That the Service may utilize advances
of funds, or reimburse this appropriation for expenditures
made on behalf of Federal agencies, public and private
organizations and institutions under agreements executed
pursuant to the agricultural food production assistance
programs (7 U.S.C. 1737) and the foreign assistance programs
of the United States Agency for International Development.

Public Law 480 Title I Direct Credit and Food for Progress Program
Account

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of agreements under the
Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954,
and the Food for Progress Act of 1985, including the cost of
modifying credit arrangements under said Acts, $65,040,000,
to remain available until expended: Provided, That the
Secretary of Agriculture may implement a commodity
monetization program under existing provisions of the Food
for Progress Act of 1985 to provide no less than $5,000,000
in local-currency funding support for rural electrification
development overseas.

{time} 1345

Point of Order

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I raise a point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mrs. Capito). The gentleman will state his point
of order.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I make a point of order to the
provision in title V Public Law 480 title I Direct Credit and Food for
Progress Program Account, that begins with the colon on page 54, line 4
through ``overseas'' on line 9 of H.R. 2744, the Agricultural, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.
I make a point of order against the provision that begins with the
colon on page 54, line 4 through ``overseas'' on line 9 in that it
violates House rule XXI, clause 2 by changing existing law and
inserting legislative language in an appropriations bill.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of
order? If not, the Chair will rule.
The Chair finds that this provision includes language conferring
authority. The provision, therefore, constitutes legislation in
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained, and
the provision is stricken from the bill.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
credit program of title I, Public Law 83-480, and the Food
for Progress Act of 1985, to the extent funds appropriated
for Public Law 83-480 are utilized, $3,385,000, of which
$168,000 may be transferred to and merged with the
appropriation for ``Foreign Agricultural Service, Salaries
and Expenses'', and of which $3,217,000 may be transferred to
and merged with the appropriation for ``Farm Service Agency,
Salaries and Expenses''.

Public Law 480 Title I Ocean Freight Differential Grants

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

For ocean freight differential costs for the shipment of
agricultural commodities under title I of the Agricultural
Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 and under the
Food for Progress Act of 1985, $11,940,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That funds made available
for the cost of agreements under title I of the Agricultural
Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 and for title I
ocean freight differential may be used interchangeably
between the two accounts with prior notice to the Committees
on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.

Public Law 480 Title II Grants

For expenses during the current fiscal year, not otherwise
recoverable, and unrecovered prior years' costs, including
interest thereon, under the Agricultural Trade Development
and Assistance Act of 1954, for commodities supplied in
connection with dispositions abroad under title II of said
Act, $1,107,094,000, to remain available until expended.

Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loans Program Account

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

For administrative expenses to carry out the Commodity
Credit Corporation's export guarantee program, GSM 102 and
GSM 103, $5,279,000; to cover common overhead expenses as
permitted by section 11 of the Commodity Credit Corporation
Charter Act and in conformity with the Federal Credit Reform
Act of 1990, of which $3,440,000 may be transferred to and
merged with the appropriation for ``Foreign Agricultural
Service, Salaries and Expenses'', and of which $1,839,000 may
be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for
``Farm Service Agency, Salaries and Expenses''.

[[Page H4234]]

McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition
Program Grants

For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of
section 3107 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of
2002 (7 U.S.C. 1736o-1), $100,000,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That the Commodity Credit
Corporation is authorized to provide the services,
facilities, and authorities for the purpose of implementing
such section, subject to reimbursement from amounts provided
herein.

TITLE VI

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the Food and Drug Administration,
including hire and purchase of passenger motor vehicles; for
payment of space rental and related costs pursuant to Public
Law 92-313 for programs and activities of the Food and Drug
Administration which are included in this Act; for rental of
special purpose space in the District of Columbia or
elsewhere; for miscellaneous and emergency expenses of
enforcement activities, authorized and approved by the
Secretary and to be accounted for solely on the Secretary's
certificate, not to exceed $25,000; and notwithstanding
section 521 of Public Law 107-188; $1,837,928,000: Provided,
That of the amount provided under this heading, $305,332,000
shall be derived from prescription drug user fees authorized
by 21 U.S.C. 379h, shall be credited to this account and
remain available until expended, and shall not include any
fees pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 379h(a)(2) and (a)(3) assessed for
fiscal year 2007 but collected in fiscal year 2006;
$40,300,000 shall be derived from medical device user fees
authorized by 21 U.S.C. 379j, and shall be credited to
this account and remain available until expended; and
$11,318,000 shall be derived from animal drug user fees
authorized by 21 U.S.C. 379j, and shall be credited to
this account and remain available until expended: Provided
further, That fees derived from prescription drug, medical
device, and animal drug assessments received during fiscal
year 2006, including any such fees assessed prior to the
current fiscal year but credited during the current year,
shall be subject to the fiscal year 2006 limitation:
Provided further, That none of these funds shall be used
to develop, establish, or operate any program of user fees
authorized by 31 U.S.C. 9701: Provided further, That of
the total amount appropriated: (1) $444,095,000 shall be
for the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition and
related field activities in the Office of Regulatory
Affairs; (2) $519,814,000 shall be for the Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research and related field activities in
the Office of Regulatory Affairs; (3) $178,713,000 shall
be for the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research
and for related field activities in the Office of
Regulatory Affairs; (4) $99,787,000 shall be for the
Center for Veterinary Medicine and for related field
activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs; (5)
$243,939,000 shall be for the Center for Devices and
Radiological Health and for related field activities in
the Office of Regulatory Affairs; (6) $41,152,000 shall be
for the National Center for Toxicological Research; (7)
$58,515,000 shall be for Rent and Related activities, of
which $21,974,000 is for White Oak Consolidation, other
than the amounts paid to the General Services
Administration for rent; (8) $134,853,000 shall be for
payments to the General Services Administration for rent;
and (9) $117,060,000 shall be for other activities,
including the Office of the Commissioner; the Office of
Management; the Office of External Relations; the Office
of Policy and Planning; and central services for these
offices: Provided further, That of the funds provided
herein for other activities, $5,853,000 may not be
obligated until the Commissioner or Acting Commissioner
has presented public testimony on the President's 2006
budget request before the Committee on Appropriations of
the House of Representatives: Provided further, That funds
may be transferred from one specified activity to another
with the prior approval of the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
In addition, mammography user fees authorized by 42 U.S.C.
263b may be credited to this account, to remain available
until expended.
In addition, export certification user fees authorized by
21 U.S.C. 381 may be credited to this account, to remain
available until expended.

Buildings and Facilities

For plans, construction, repair, improvement, extension,
alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities of
or used by the Food and Drug Administration, where not
otherwise provided, $5,000,000 to remain available until
expended.

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Commodity Future Trading Commission

For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the
Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), including the
purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles, and the rental
of space (to include multiple year leases) in the District of
Columbia and elsewhere, $98,386,000, including not to exceed
$3,000 for official reception and representation expenses.

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

Limitation on Administrative Expenses

Not to exceed $44,250,000 (from assessments collected from
farm credit institutions and from the Federal Agricultural
Mortgage Corporation) shall be obligated during the current
fiscal year for administrative expenses as authorized under
12 U.S.C. 2249: Provided, That this limitation shall not
apply to expenses associated with receiverships.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that title VII be
considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any
point.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Forbes). Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The text of title VII is as follows:

TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

(INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

Sec. 701. Within the unit limit of cost fixed by law,
appropriations and authorizations made for the Department of
Agriculture for the current fiscal year under this Act shall
be available for the purchase, in addition to those
specifically provided for, of not to exceed 320 passenger
motor vehicles, of which 320 shall be for replacement only,
and for the hire of such vehicles.
Sec. 702. Funds in this Act available to the Department of
Agriculture shall be available for uniforms or allowances
therefor as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902).
Sec. 703. Funds appropriated by this Act shall be available
for employment pursuant to the second sentence of section
706(a) of the Department of Agriculture Organic Act of 1944
(7 U.S.C. 2225) and 5 U.S.C. 3109.
Sec. 704. New obligational authority provided for the
following appropriation items in this Act shall remain
available until expended: Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, the contingency fund to meet emergency conditions,
information technology infrastructure, fruit fly program,
emerging plant pests, boll weevil program, up to $8,000,000
in the low pathogen avian influenza program for indemnities,
up to $1,500,000 in the scrapie program for indemnities, up
to $33,340,000 in animal health monitoring and surveillance
for the animal identification system, up to $3,009,000 in the
emergency management systems program for the vaccine bank, up
to $1,000,000 of the wildlife services operations program for
aviation safety, and up to 25 percent of the screwworm
program; Food Safety and Inspection Service, field automation
and information management project; Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service, funds for
competitive research grants (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)); Farm Service
Agency, salaries and expenses funds made available to county
committees; Foreign Agricultural Service, middle-income
country training program, and up to $1,565,000 of the Foreign
Agricultural Service appropriation solely for the purpose of
offsetting fluctuations in international currency exchange
rates, subject to documentation by the Foreign Agricultural
Service.
Sec. 705. The Secretary of Agriculture may transfer
unobligated balances of discretionary funds appropriated by
this Act or other available unobligated discretionary
balances of the Department of Agriculture to the Working
Capital Fund for the acquisition of plant and capital
equipment necessary for the delivery of financial,
administrative, and information technology services of
primary benefit to the agencies of the Department of
Agriculture: Provided, That none of the funds made available
by this Act or any other Act shall be transferred to the
Working Capital Fund without the prior approval of the
agency administrator: Provided further, That none of the
funds transferred to the Working Capital Fund pursuant to
this section shall be available for obligation without the
prior approval of the Committees on Appropriations of both
Houses of Congress.
Sec. 706. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 707. Not to exceed $50,000 of the appropriations
available to the Department of Agriculture in this Act shall
be available to provide appropriate orientation and language
training pursuant to section 606C of the Act of August 28,
1954 (7 U.S.C. 1766b).
Sec. 708. No funds appropriated by this Act may be used to
pay negotiated indirect cost rates on cooperative agreements
or similar arrangements between the United States Department
of Agriculture and nonprofit institutions in excess of 10
percent of the total direct cost of the agreement when the
purpose of such cooperative arrangements is to carry out
programs of mutual interest between the two parties. This
does not preclude appropriate payment of indirect costs on
grants and contracts with such institutions when such
indirect costs are computed on a similar basis for all
agencies for which appropriations are provided in this Act.
Sec. 709. None of the funds in this Act shall be available
to restrict the authority of the Commodity Credit Corporation
to lease space for its own use or to lease space on behalf of
other agencies of the Department of Agriculture when such
space will be jointly occupied.
Sec. 710. None of the funds in this Act shall be available
to pay indirect costs charged against competitive
agricultural research, education, or extension grant awards
issued by the Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service that exceed 20 percent of total Federal
funds provided under each award: Provided, That
notwithstanding

[[Page H4235]]

section 1462 of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3310),
funds provided by this Act for grants awarded competitively
by the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service shall be available to pay full allowable indirect
costs for each grant awarded under section 9 of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638).
Sec. 711. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
all loan levels provided in this Act shall be considered
estimates, not limitations.
Sec. 712. Appropriations to the Department of Agriculture
for the cost of direct and guaranteed loans made available in
the current fiscal year shall remain available until expended
to cover obligations made in the current fiscal year for the
following accounts: the Rural Development Loan Fund program
account, the Rural Electrification and Telecommunication
Loans program account, and the Rural Housing Insurance Fund
program account.
Sec. 713. Of the funds made available by this Act, not more
than $1,800,000 shall be used to cover necessary expenses of
activities related to all advisory committees, panels,
commissions, and task forces of the Department of
Agriculture, except for panels used to comply with negotiated
rule makings and panels used to evaluate competitively
awarded grants.
Sec. 714. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used to carry out section 410 of the Federal Meat Inspection
Act (21 U.S.C. 679a) or section 30 of the Poultry Products
Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 471).
Sec. 715. No employee of the Department of Agriculture may
be detailed or assigned from an agency or office funded by
this Act to any other agency or office of the Department for
more than 30 days unless the individual's employing agency or
office is fully reimbursed by the receiving agency or office
for the salary and expenses of the employee for the period of
assignment.
Sec. 716. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available to the Department of Agriculture or the Food and
Drug Administration shall be used to transmit or otherwise
make available to any non-Department of Agriculture or non-
Department of Health and Human Services employee questions or
responses to questions that are a result of information
requested for the appropriations hearing process.
Sec. 717. None of the funds made available to the
Department of Agriculture by this Act may be used to acquire
new information technology systems or significant upgrades,
as determined by the Office of the Chief Information Officer,
without the approval of the Chief Information Officer and the
concurrence of the Executive Information Technology
Investment Review Board: Provided, That notwithstanding any
other provision of law, none of the funds appropriated or
otherwise made available by this Act may be transferred to
the Office of the Chief Information Officer without the prior
approval of the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses
of Congress: Provided further, That none of the funds
available to the Department of Agriculture for information
technology shall be obligated for projects over $25,000 prior
to receipt of written approval by the Chief Information
Officer.
Sec. 718. (a) None of the funds provided by this Act, or
provided by previous Appropriations Acts to the agencies
funded by this Act that remain available for obligation or
expenditure in the current fiscal year, or provided from any
accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the
collection of fees available to the agencies funded by this
Act, shall be available for obligation or expenditure through
a reprogramming of funds which:
(1) creates new programs;
(2) eliminates a program, project, or activity;
(3) increases funds or personnel by any means for any
project or activity for which funds have been denied or
restricted;
(4) relocates an office or employees;
(5) reorganizes offices, programs, or activities; or
(6) contracts out or privatizes any functions or activities
presently performed by Federal employees; unless the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress are
notified 15 days in advance of such reprogramming of funds.
(b) None of the funds provided by this Act, or provided by
previous Appropriations Acts to the agencies funded by this
Act that remain available for obligation or expenditure in
the current fiscal year, or provided from any accounts in
the Treasury of the United States derived by the
collection of fees available to the agencies funded by
this Act, shall be available for obligation or expenditure
for activities, programs, or projects through a
reprogramming of funds in excess of $500,000 or 10
percent, which-ever is less, that: (1) augments existing
programs, projects, or activities; (2) reduces by 10
percent funding for any existing program, project, or
activity, or numbers of personnel by 10 percent as
approved by Congress; or (3) results from any general
savings from a reduction in personnel which would result
in a change in existing programs, activities, or projects
as approved by Congress; unless the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress are notified 15
days in advance of such reprogramming of funds.
(c) The Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Health
and Human Services, or the Chairman of the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission shall notify the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress before implementing
a program or activity not carried out during the previous
fiscal year unless the program or activity is funded by this
Act or specifically funded by any other Act.
Sec. 719. With the exception of funds needed to administer
and conduct oversight of grants awarded and obligations
incurred in prior fiscal years, none of the funds
appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other
Act may be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel
to carry out the provisions of section 401 of Public Law 105-
185, the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems
(7 U.S.C. 7621).
Sec. 720. None of the funds appropriated by this or any
other Act shall be used to pay the salaries and expenses of
personnel who prepare or submit appropriations language as
part of the President's Budget submission to the Congress of
the United States for programs under the jurisdiction of the
Appropriations Subcommittees on Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies that assumes revenues or reflects a reduction from
the previous year due to user fees proposals that have not
been enacted into law prior to the submission of the Budget
unless such Budget submission identifies which additional
spending reductions should occur in the event the user fees
proposals are not enacted prior to the date of the convening
of a committee of conference for the fiscal year 2007
appropriations Act.
Sec. 721. None of the funds made available by this or any
other Act may be used to close or relocate a State Rural
Development office unless or until cost effectiveness and
enhancement of program delivery have been determined.
Sec. 722. In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated or
made available by this Act, $2,500,000 is appropriated for
the purpose of providing Bill Emerson and Mickey Leland
Hunger Fellowships, through the Congressional Hunger Center.
Sec. 723. Notwithstanding section 412 of the Agricultural
Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C.
1736f), any balances available to carry out title III of such
Act as of the date of enactment of this Act, and any
recoveries and reimbursements that become available to carry
out title III of such Act, may be used to carry out title II
of such Act.
Sec. 724. Section 375(e)(6)(B) of the Consolidated Farm and
Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2008j(e)(6)(B)) is amended by
striking ``$27,998,000'' and inserting ``$28,498,000''.
Sec. 725. Of any shipments of commodities made pursuant to
section 416(b) of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C.
1431(b)), the Secretary of Agriculture shall, to the extent
practicable, direct that tonnage equal in value to not more
than $25,000,000 shall be made available to foreign countries
to assist in mitigating the effects of the Human
Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndrome on communities, including the provision of--
(1) agricultural commodities to--
(A) individuals with Human Immunodeficiency Virus or
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome in the communities; and
(B) households in the communities, particularly individuals
caring for orphaned children; and
(2) agricultural commodities monetized to provide other
assistance (including assistance under microcredit and
microenterprise programs) to create or restore sustainable
livelihoods among individuals in the communities,
particularly individuals caring for orphaned children.
Sec. 726. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Natural Resources Conservation Service shall provide
financial and technical assistance to the Kane County,
Illinois, Indian Creek Watershed Flood Prevention Project,
from funds available for the Watershed and Flood Prevention
Operations program, not to exceed $1,000,000 and Hickory
Creek Special Drainage District, Bureau County, Illinois, not
to exceed $50,000.
Sec. 727. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality
of the United States Government, except pursuant to a
transfer made by, or transfer authority provided in, this or
any other appropriation Act.
Sec. 728. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of
the funds made available in this Act for competitive research
grants (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)), the Secretary may use up to 22
percent of the amount provided to carry out a competitive
grants program under the same terms and conditions as those
provided in section 401 of the Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7621).
Sec. 729. None of the funds appropriated or made available
by this or any other Act may be used to pay the salaries and
expenses of personnel to carry out section 14(h)(1) of the
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C.
1012(h)(1)).
Sec. 730. None of the funds appropriated or made available
by this or any other Act may be used to pay the salaries and
expenses of personnel to carry out subtitle I of the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2009dd
through dd-7).
Sec. 731. Agencies and offices of the Department of
Agriculture may utilize any unobligated salaries and expenses
funds to reimburse the Office of the General Counsel for
salaries and expenses of personnel, and for other related
expenses, incurred in representing such agencies and offices
in the resolution of complaints by employees or applicants
for employment, and in cases and

[[Page H4236]]

other matters pending before the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, the Federal Labor Relations Authority, or the
Merit Systems Protection Board with the prior approval of the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
Sec. 732. None of the funds appropriated or made available
by this or any other Act may be used to pay the salaries and
expenses of personnel to carry out section 6405 of Public Law
107-171 (7 U.S.C. 2655).
Sec. 733. Of the funds made available under section 27(a)
of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), the
Secretary may use up to $10,000,000 for costs associated with
the distribution of commodities.
Sec. 734. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this or any other Act shall be used to pay the
salaries and expenses of personnel to enroll in excess of
154,500 acres in the calendar year 2006 wetlands reserve
program as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 3837.
Sec. 735. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this or any other Act shall be used to pay the
salaries and expenses of personnel who carry out an
environmental quality incentives program authorized by
chapter 4 of subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security Act
of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa et seq.) in excess of
$1,012,000,000.
Sec. 736. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this or any other Act shall be used to pay the
salaries and expenses of personnel to expend the $23,000,000
made available by section 9006(f) of the Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8106(f)).
Sec. 737. With the exception of funds provided in fiscal
year 2003, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this or any other Act shall be used to pay the
salaries and expenses of personnel to expend the $50,000,000
made available by section 601(j)(1)(A) of the Rural
Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 950bb(j)(1)(A)).
Sec. 738. None of the funds made available in fiscal year
2005 or preceding fiscal years for programs authorized under
the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954
(7 U.S.C. 1691 et seq.) in excess of $20,000,000 shall be
used to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for the
release of eligible commodities under section 302(f)(2)(A) of
the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust Act (7 U.S.C. 1736f-1):
Provided, That any such funds made available to reimburse the
Commodity Credit Corporation shall only be used pursuant to
section 302(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Bill Emerson Humanitarian
Trust Act.
Sec. 739. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this or any other Act shall be used to pay the
salaries and expenses of personnel to expend the $120,000,000
made available by section 6401(a) of Public Law 107-171.
Sec. 740. Notwithstanding subsections (c) and (e)(2) of
section 313A of the Rural Electrification Act (7 U.S.C.
940c(c) and (e)(2)) in implementing section 313A of that Act,
the Secretary shall, with the consent of the lender,
structure the schedule for payment of the annual fee, not to
exceed an average of 30 basis points per year for the term of
the loan, to ensure that sufficient funds are available to
pay the subsidy costs for note guarantees under that section.
Sec. 741. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this or any other Act shall be used to pay the
salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out a
Conservation Security Program authorized by 16 U.S.C. 3838 et
seq., in excess of $258,000,000.
Sec. 742. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this or any other Act shall be used to pay the
salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out section 2502
of Public Law 107-171 in excess of $60,000,000.
Sec. 743. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this or any other Act shall be used to pay the
salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out section 2503
of Public Law 107-171 in excess of $83,500,000.
Sec. 744. With the exception of funds provided in fiscal
year 2005, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this or any other Act shall be used to carry out
section 6029 of Public Law 107-171.
Sec. 745. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available in this Act shall be expended to violate Public Law
105-264.
Sec. 746. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this or any other Act shall be used to pay the
salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out a ground and
surface water conservation program authorized by section 2301
of Public Law 107-171 in excess of $51,000,000.
Sec. 747. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to issue a final rule in furtherance of, or otherwise
implement, the proposed rule on cost-sharing for animal and
plant health emergency programs of the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service published on July 8, 2003 (Docket
No. 02-062-1; 68 Fed. Reg. 40541).
Sec. 748. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to study, complete a study of, or enter into a
contract with a private party to carry out, without specific
authorization in a subsequent Act of Congress, a competitive
sourcing activity of the Secretary of Agriculture, including
support personnel of the Department of Agriculture, relating
to rural development or farm loan programs.
Sec. 749. Hereafter, notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Secretary of Agriculture may use appropriations
available to the Secretary for activities authorized under
sections 426-426c of title 7, United States Code, under this
or any other Act, to enter into cooperative agreements, with
a State, political subdivision, or agency thereof, a public
or private agency, organization, or any other person, to
lease aircraft if the Secretary determines that the
objectives of the agreement will: (1) serve a mutual interest
of the parties to the agreement in carrying out the programs
administered by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, Wildlife Services; and (2) all parties will
contribute resources to the accomplishment of these
objectives; award of a cooperative agreement authorized by
the Secretary may be made for an initial term not to exceed 5
years.
Sec. 750. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this or any other Act shall be used to pay the
salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out section 9010
of Public Law 107-171 in excess of $60,000,000.
Sec. 751. Agencies and offices of the Department of
Agriculture may utilize any available discretionary funds to
cover the costs of preparing, or contracting for the
preparation of, final agency decisions regarding complaints
of discrimination in employment or program activities arising
within such agencies and offices.
Sec. 752. Funds made available under section 1240I and
section 1241(a) of the Food Security Act of 1985 in fiscal
year 2006 shall remain available until expended to cover
obligations made in fiscal year 2006, and are not available
for new obligations.
Sec. 753. None of the funds made available under this Act
shall be available to pay the administrative expenses of a
State agency that, after the date of enactment of this Act
and prior to implementation of interim final regulations
regarding vendor cost containment in accordance with the
provisions set forth in section 17(h)(11)(G) of the Child
Nutrition Act of 1966, authorizes any new for-profit
vendor(s) to transact food instruments under the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and
Children if it is expected that more than 50 percent of the
annual revenue of the vendor from the sale of food items will
be derived from the sale of supplemental foods that are
obtained with WIC food instruments, except that the Secretary
may approve the authorization of such a vendor if the
approval is necessary to assure participant access to program
benefits or is in accordance with the provisions set forth in
section 17(h)(11)(E) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966.
Sec. 754. There is hereby appropriated $1,000,000, to
remain available until expended, for a grant to the Ohio
Livestock Expo Center in Springfield, Ohio.
Sec. 755. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this or any other Act shall be used to pay the
salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out an
Agricultural Management Assistance Program as authorized by
section 524 of the Federal Crop Insurance Act in excess of
$6,000,000 (7 U.S.C. 1524).
Sec. 756. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this or any other Act shall be used to pay the
salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out a Biomass
Research and Development Program in excess of $12,000,000, as
authorized by Public Law 106-224 (7 U.S.C. 7624 note).
Sec. 757. Notwithstanding 40 U.S.C. 524, 571, and 572, the
Secretary of Agriculture may sell the US Water Conservation
Laboratory, Phoenix, Arizona, and the Western Cotton Research
Center, Phoenix, Arizona, and credit the net proceeds of such
sales as offsetting collections to its Agricultural Research
Service Buildings and Facilities account. Such funds shall be
available until September 30, 2007 to be used to replace
these facilities and to improve other USDA-owned facilities.
Sec. 758. None of the funds provided in this Act may be
used for salaries and expenses to draft or implement any
regulation or rule insofar as it would require
recertification of rural status for each electric and
telecommunications borrower for the Rural Electrification and
Telecommunication Loans program.
Sec. 759. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act shall be used for the implementation of
Country of Origin Labeling for meat or meat products.
Sec. 760. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
and until the receipt of the decennial Census in the year
2010, the Secretary of Agriculture shall consider--
(1) the City of Bridgeton, New Jersey, the City of Kinston,
North Carolina, and the City of Portsmouth, Ohio as rural
areas for the purposes of Rural Housing Service Community
Facilities Program loans and grants;
(2) the Township of Bloomington, Illinois (including
individuals and entities with projects within the Township)
eligible for Rural Housing Service Community Facilities
Programs loans and grants;
(3) the City of Hidalgo, Texas as a rural area for the
purposes of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service Rural
Business Enterprise Grant Program;
(4) the City of Elgin, Oklahoma (including individuals and
entities with projects within the city) eligible for Rural
Utilities Service water and waste water loans and grants;
(5) the City of Lone Grove, Oklahoma (including individuals
and entities with projects within the city) eligible for
Rural Housing Service Community Facilities Program loans and
grants; and

[[Page H4237]]

(6) the Municipalities of Vega Baja, Manati, Guayama,
Fajardo, Humacao, and Naguabo (including individuals and
entities with projects within the Municipalities) eligible
for Rural Community Advancement Program loans and grants and
intermediate relending programs.
Sec. 761. The Secretary of Agriculture shall use
$10,000,000 of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation,
to remain available until expended, to compensate commercial
citrus and lime growers in the State of Florida for tree
replacement and for lost production with respect to trees
removed to control citrus canker, and with respect to
certified citrus nursery stocks within the citrus canker
quarantine areas, as determined by the Secretary. For a
grower to receive assistance for a tree under this section,
the tree must have been removed after September 30, 2001.
Sec. 762. The counties of Burlington and Camden, New Jersey
(including individuals and entities with projects within
these counties) shall be eligible for loans and grants under
the Rural Community Advancement Program for fiscal year 2006
to the same extent they were eligible for such assistance
during the fiscal year 2005 under section 106 of Chapter 1 of
Division B of Public Law 108-324 (188 Stat. 1236).
Sec. 763. Of the unobligated balances available in the
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants,
and Children reserve account, $32,000,000 is hereby
rescinded.
Sec. 764. None of the funds provided by this Act shall be
used to pay salaries and expenses and other costs associated
with implementing or administering section 508(e)(3) of the
Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) for the
2006 reinsurance year.
Sec. 765. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act for the Food and Drug Administration
may be used under section 801 of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act to prevent an individual not in the business of
importing a prescription drug within the meaning of section
801(g) of such Act, wholesalers, or pharmacists from
importing a prescription drug which complies with sections
501, 502, and 505.
Sec. 766. Unless otherwise authorized by existing law, none
of the funds provided in this Act, may be used by an
executive branch agency to produce any prepackaged news story
intended for broadcast or distribution in the United States
unless the story includes a clear notification within the
text or audio of the prepackaged news story that the
prepackaged news story was prepared or funded by that
executive branch agency.
Sec. 767. In addition to other amounts appropriated or
otherwise made available by this Act, there is hereby
appropriated to the Secretary of Agriculture $7,000,000, of
which not to exceed 5 percent may be available for
administrative expenses, to remain available until expended,
to make specialty crop block grants under section 101 of the
Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-
465; 7 U.S.C. 1621 note).

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there any points of order to that portion of
the bill?

Points of Order

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section
749 that begins on page 77, line 1, and ends on page 77, line 16, in
that it violates House rule XXI, clause 2, by changing existing law and
inserting legislative language in an appropriation bill.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does anybody wish to be heard on the point of
order? If not, the Chair will rule.
The Chair finds that this provision explicitly supersedes existing
law. The provision, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of
clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained, and the
provision is stricken from the bill.
Are there any other points of order to this bill?
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section
760 that begins on page 81, line 1 through 7 and beginning with ``and''
on page 81, line 11 through ``programs'' on line 17 in that it violates
House rule XXI, clause 2, by changing existing law and inserting
legislative language in an appropriation bill.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of
order? If not, the Chair will rule.
The Chair finds that this provision includes language conferring
authority. The provision, therefore, constitutes legislation in
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained, and
the provision is stricken from the bill.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Bonilla

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Bonilla:
On page 73, line 16, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $40,000,000)'';
On page 75, line 10, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(decreased by $13,000,000)'';
On page 75, line 15, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(decreased by $17,000,000)''; and,
On page 75, line 20, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(decreased by $10,000,000)''.

Mr. BONILLA (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment as part of
the agreement that I referred to earlier with the chairman of the
Committee on Agriculture.
I am offering the amendment under the agreement that we would add $40
million back to the Environmental Quality Incentives program account.
That is what the amendment does, and it is paid for by increasing the
limitations on the Conservation Security program, the Wildlife Habitat
Incentives program, and the Farm and Ranchlands Protection program.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Ms. DeLauro

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

Amendment offered by Ms. DeLauro:
In section 757, strike ``and the Western Cotton Research
Center, Phoenix, Arizona, and credit the net proceeds of such
sales'' and insert ``and credit the net proceeds of such
sale''.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in suppor of Mrs. DeLauro's
amendment to strike part of Section 757 of Title VII of the Agriculture
Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2006.
In 1966, the Arizona Cotton Growers Association and the Arizona
Cotton Planting Seed Distributors deeded a piece of property located at
4135 East Broadway Road in Phoenix To USDA for $1.00 to help with the
construction of the Western Cotton Research Center. With the
construction of a new facility for the research center at the
University of Arizona'a Maricopa Agricultural Center, the research and
its staff will move within the next two years, leaving this property
behind.
I think it is appropriate that this property, which abuts the
headquarters of the Arizona Cotton Growers Association, revert back to
that group, since they deeded this property to USDA originally for only
$1.00.
I fully support removing the language allowing the Secretary of
Agriculture to sell the Wester Cotton Research Center, Phoenix, Arizona
and crediting the net proceeds of that sale as offsetting collections
to the ARS Buildings and Facilities account.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment that the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor) has worked very hard on for some
time and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) is offering on
his behalf, and we are happy to accept the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro)
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for accepting the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Moran of Kansas

Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Moran of Kansas:
Add at the end (before the short title), the following new
section:
Sec. 7__. Of the amount made available under the heading
``ANIMAL and PLANT HEATH INSPECTION SERVICE--Salaries and
Expenses'', $15,000,000 shall be used by the Secretary of
Agriculture to carry out sections 454 and 455 of the Plant
Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7783, 7784).
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved. The gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Moran) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, today I offer an amendment to
appropriate funds for the eradication of noxious weeds.

[[Page H4238]]

I first would like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla),
the chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, as well as the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), for their leadership in
what I know is a very difficult task of allocating funds within the
budgetary restraints that we find ourselves. I would also like to thank
their staff for their hard work and their efforts to accommodate my
amendment.
This amendment would allocate within the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service $15 million to fund the Noxious Weed Control and
Eradication Act of 2004. This legislation, the act, was authorized for
the past 2 years, but no funding has yet been appropriated to carry out
the purpose of the program.
The Noxious Weed Control and Eradication Act passed the House in
October of 2004 and allows the Secretary of the Department of
Agriculture to establish a grant program to control and eradicate
noxious weeds.
This legislation gives local weed management entities the ability to
control local weed problems and provides the funding necessary for them
to meet a very serious need in many places across the country.
This legislation has broad bipartisan support and will benefit the
entire Nation.
Noxious weeds are a significant environmental and economic concern. I
know from my own experiences in Kansas, we have a difficult time
controlling the very difficult and noxious weeds. Sericea lespedeza is
a weed that has invaded many acres of the foothills region of Kansas,
which contain some of the few remaining acres of native tall grass
prairie.
Sericea lespedeza is just one example of many invasive species that
create economic hardship across the country; and by finally providing
these funds, we can help in the battle to eradicate this and prevent a
major outbreak of noxious weeds.
This is a matter in which timing is critical; and we need to give our
communities, our local entities, and our farmers, landowners, the tools
they need to manage our natural landscapes.
Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues for the offering of this
amendment.

{time} 1400

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, is it the gentleman's intention to withdraw his
amendment?
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BONILLA. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, based upon previous conversations
with the gentleman from Texas and the staff of the agriculture
subcommittee, I am willing to withdraw my amendment under the
understanding that we have reached in regard to cooperation on this
issue in the future.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, absolutely. Let me point out that the
gentleman from Kansas is not only working hard on this particular
issue, but he is a key player on agricultural issues that we deal with
on a daily basis here in Washington. I am not only on this issue, but
whatever issue the gentleman brings forward, we are ready and willing
to discuss, work with and solve problems with him. He comes to the
table every day very serious about these issues and truly in his heart
wants to solve issues that face agriculture across the country.
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
withdraw my amendment and look forward to working with the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) in regard to this issue being considered in
the future.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Forbes). Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Kansas?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Rehberg

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

Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Rehberg:
Strike section 759 (page 80, lines 7 through 10), relating
to the delay in country of origin labeling for meat and meat
products.

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, here we are addressing an issue we have
addressed many times over the last several years. I find myself in a
precarious position because I do support the agriculture appropriations
bill, and I think the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) deserves a pat
on the back for the fine work he has accomplished over the last several
months in putting this piece of legislation together.
The issue I am talking about today is country-of-origin labeling. The
thing we cannot kid ourselves about is that the actions that were taken
within the Committee on Appropriations will effectively delay country-
of-origin labeling's implementation, but, unfortunately, it probably
kills it because there is that attempt that is occurring.
This was an issue supported by the House of Representatives and
passed, supported by the Senate and passed, and ultimately signed by
the President of the United States. What I find ironic is the opponents
say this would be costly, difficult to implement, and it is not a
safety issue. I brought along a number of articles today that kind of
take the wind out of the sails of that argument.
I find interesting that, in the Auburn Journal in northern
California, one of the areas that has been allowed to be implemented is
seafood. Fruits and vegetables are shortly behind. The only ones that
are not being able to be implemented are cattle. So I draw Members'
attention to an article in the Auburn Journal dated May 25, 2005.
What this article says is, ``Seafood savvy now know where their meal
grew up.'' It states, ``In the seafood section at Raley's supermarket,
small blue containers line the shelves, filled with red and tan fish.
Labels on the clear wrappers give traditional information about the
seafood type and nutritional facts. In the bottom right-hand corner,
however, a new label is attached: a small white rectangle with bold
black print that reads `Product of Ecuador,' `Product of China,' or
`Product of U.S.A.'
``Raley's has been labeling its seafood products since January, said
Keith Allen, Auburn Raley's meat department manager. While the burden
of labeling falls on grocers, it has not been difficult for the meat
department staff to adjust to the change. `It is just a matter of
putting the sticker on the package,' he said Monday.
``By naming the country of origin, the labels give savvy customers
the opportunity to choose fish from countries with high sanitation
standards and better growing conditions. Several customers have already
commented on the change, Allen said.
``Annette Eastman, shopping at Raley's Tuesday morning, said she was
glad to see the new labels. She would prefer not to buy seafood from
countries such as Mexico because she worries that the quality of the
water where the fish that are raised is poor.
`` `I would much rather buy something from the U.S.A.,' she said,
pointing to the fish fillet labeled `Product of the U.S.A.' Another
shopper, Tammieh Vernon, also said the labels would influence her
seafood purchases.''
Interesting as well, I pulled this article off the Internet. The
title: Country-of-origin labeling good news for Texas shrimp
enthusiasts. May 15, 2005.
``Texans who are picky about where their shrimp comes from can now
rest assured that they are getting exactly what they want. As of April
4, labeling of fish and shellfish for country of origin and method of
production became mandatory. The announcement by the USDA requires
retailers to notify their customers of the country of origin of the
seafood they buy.
`` `It is a win/win situation for Texas,' said Agriculture
Commissioner Susan Combs. `Texans love to buy Texas products, and this
way they will know they are getting the quality they love. In turn,
sales will increase, providing a boost to Texas shrimp producers and
the State's economy.'
``With these new rules and regulations, more Texas consumers will
have the opportunity to buy Lone Star State shrimp. This new regulation
enables consumers to quickly differentiate between domestic and
imported products, said D'Anne Stites, Texas Department of
Agriculture's coordinator.
``Country-of-origin labeling or COOL regulations will make marketing
easier as customers can see firsthand what

[[Page H4239]]

they are getting. Stites said, `Consumers will be able to ask for Texas
shrimp with the knowledge of what is available in front of them.' ''
So it is a marketing issue, very clearly. But I think the people of
America want to know where their livestock does in fact come from.
It was interesting to see that Japan shut our markets down on
Christmas Eve of 2003 and still have not opened them. Unfortunately, 23
percent of our exports go to Japan. And why did they not open their
markets and why did they close them in the first place? Because we
could not prove that our livestock that we are exporting to Japan did
not come from Canada.
So it is not a trade issue. In some ways, it is a safety issue; and
that is unfortunate.
I might also point out on May 25 of this year the USDA closed its
border to cattle from Durango, Mexico. Agriculture Secretary Mike
Johanns on Tuesday announced that USDA Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service has closed the U.S. border to cattle from Mexico's
state of Durango due to inadequate health inspection programs there.
The ACTING Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional
minutes.
The ACTING Chairman. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Montana?
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I ask
unanimous consent from this point on debate on this amendment be
limited to 30 minutes with 15 minutes allotted to the gentleman from
Montana (Mr. Rehberg) and 15 minutes allotted to myself who will rise
to oppose this amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I have no
problem with the time limit, but I would not want a time limit that
boxed the minority out of control of any time.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, my unanimous consent request is to allow
15 minutes for the proponent of the amendment and 15 minutes in
opposition to the amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, could the gentleman split the time in
opposition to the amendment in two?
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for the gentleman
from Montana (Mr. Rehberg) to control 15 minutes and to be split
between myself and the minority 7\1/2\ minutes each in opposition to
the amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection.
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, point of clarification, if the intent is
to split the proponents of the amendment, so I am a proponent, 15
minutes in favor of my amendment and 7\1/2\ minutes each to those that
are opposed to the amendment, is that what the unanimous consent
requests?
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's understanding is correct.
In reality, there will probably be more speakers in favor of the
Rehberg amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the request of the gentleman from Texas
include any amendments to the amendment of the gentleman from Montana
(Mr. Rehberg)?
Mr. BONILLA. No.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg) will
control 15 minutes, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) will control
7\1/2\ minutes, and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) will
control 7\1/2\ minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg).
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's
amendment. This is an issue that many of us have been working on for
many years. The country-of-origin labeling provisions that were part of
the last farm bill would present a nightmare to many producers in this
country. Good, salt-of-the-earth people in agriculture know that this
would impose up to $1 billion in additional costs to their already
overworked people and to their budgets, which are already being taxed.
This is also an issue for anybody who believes that grocery stores
and retailers are part of Americana in this country, and they would
rise in strong opposition to this amendment because there is a
liability in the country-of-origin labeling that would in essence make
your friendly corner grocery store liable for trial lawyers to come in
and say you did not put the fact that this calf may have been born in
one country, processed in another country, and now on the meat counter
in your local grocery store. Now the lawyers can come along and say, we
are taking you to court, causing the price of beef to go up for
American families. That is not something that would reflect favorably
for anyone in this country, whether you are a producer, a retailer or a
consumer.
This is a marketing issue. I realize there is an intent by this
country-of-origin labeling provision to mandate that these labels be
put on products. Nothing could be more anti free enterprise than to
mandate labeling on a product. If consumers want this, they will ask
their retailer to put it on the product so they can favor that product
over another.
I am not sure what the origin of the country-of-origin labeling
provision was in the last farm bill, but there is no doubt it would
create additional costs that consumers would have to bear.
I would also want to compliment the chairman of the authorizing
committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), for introducing
a bill to make this country-of-origin labeling provision voluntary.
There are dozens of cosponsors on the bill. It is a bipartisan effort.
Many of us have been working on that for a long time, and we hope that
this provision that I have put in this bill remains by voting no on the
Rehberg amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to rise in support of the
gentleman's amendment. There is no earthly reason why consumers should
not know where their food is coming from, and I would hope the House
would pass the amendment.
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
South Dakota (Ms. Herseth).
Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in complete support of this
amendment, and I want to commend the strong and tenacious leadership of
the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg) for his offering of the
amendment today. I also rise with no small measure of frustration and
exasperation that this amendment is even necessary today.
The 2002 farm bill made a promise to farmers and ranchers across this
country. It promised them that the Secretary of Agriculture would
implement a program to inform consumers where their meat and vegetables
come from. Producers in South Dakota see tremendous potential in this
program and urged its inclusion in the farm bill. In fact, had this
provision not been in the bill, I think that many of them would not
have supported its passage. This promise was supposed to be fulfilled
by September 30 of last year.

{time} 1415

The program should already be up and running. Instead, the large meat
packers have rallied to kill this program because they do not want
American consumers to discover how much of the meat in the grocery case
is actually imported. And these packing interests have found strong and
willing allies here in this body. Two years ago in an appropriations
bill, Congress voted to delay the implementation of this program until
September 30 of next year.
Now we see that this 2-year delay was not enough for them. Their
allies in this Chamber are at it again today, seeking to delay
implementation of this important program for yet another year. This is
unconscionable and it is just the tip of the iceberg. Leadership in
this body is breaking faith with rural America on a host of important
issues. The administration is leading the fight to reopen our border to
Canadian beef despite ongoing concerns about the safety of their beef
supply and over the strong objections of many U.S. ranchers and
consumer groups.

[[Page H4240]]

Rural America is also under attack in the budget process. The 2007
budget, which recently passed this body with only Republican votes,
will cut $3 billion from farm safety net programs in the coming years.
The President's budget was even worse, seeking a cut of almost $6
billion in farm bill programs. Because of this budget, the farm income
safety net, conservation programs and food stamps are now facing huge
cuts in the coming years. I see mandatory country-of-origin legislation
as a win-win situation and no more delays are justified. It is a win
for consumers who get the security of knowing where their meat comes
from, and it is a win for our producers who can build a stronger
marketplace for their meat based on the quality of the product.
Let us not forget that American consumers have shown overwhelming
support for COOL. A nationwide poll taken last year found that 82
percent of consumers think food should be labeled with country-of-
origin information; 85 percent said they would be more inclined to
purchase U.S. products; and 81 percent said they would be willing to
pay a few cents extra for food that is grown here at home. American
consumers want the ability to be as informed about their food purchase
decisions as they are about virtually all of the other consumers goods
they purchase. Country-of-origin labeling gives them this tool and they
support it.
Let us restore our commitment to rural America. I urge my colleagues
to support this amendment. A 2-year delay is long enough. Let us allow
the Agriculture Secretary to fulfill the promise of the 2002 farm bill
by giving producers the marketing tools that they need and consumers
the information that they are seeking on the origin of the food they
buy.
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I agree with the statements made by my colleague from Montana, and I
thank him for the leadership he has shown on this issue. Our amendment
is very simple. It would allow country-of-origin labeling, better known
as COOL, which was approved by a majority of this House in the last
farm bill, to go forward this next year. We have got to stop yet
another backdoor attempt to halt country-of-origin food labeling rules.
Consumers deserve to know where their meat is produced and that it is
safe, and farmers and ranchers deserve the fair deal provided by open
and honest labeling.
The gentleman from Montana is up here today for the same reason I am.
Like me, he represents an agricultural district and country-of-origin
labeling is something that our farmers want. That is why country-of-
origin labeling enjoys such broad support in the agriculture community.
Our amendment is supported by the National Farmers Union and over 120
other organizations.
Over the last few days, I have received letters of encouragement from
many Oregon farmers thanking me for helping to bring this amendment
forward. Our farms grow the best produce and raise the best livestock
in the world, and American consumers know this. Studies have shown that
Americans want to buy American commodities and are even willing to pay
a premium to do so. Our Nation's farmers and ranchers produce the best
and safest commodities in the world and consumers deserve the chance to
know where their food is born, raised, and processed.
Country-of-origin labeling provides U.S. agriculture producers the
opportunity to promote their excellent products. The labeling law does
not violate international trade agreements, would not drastically
increase producer and consumer costs, does not require third-party
documentation for trace-back or disadvantage any commodity. Thirty-five
other countries require country-of-origin labeling, and COOL has
already gone into effect for fish and shellfish. Labeling products is
simply a promotional tool for U.S. producers and an information source
for consumers.
For these reasons, we had country-of-origin labeling provisions added
to the last farm bill. Country-of-origin labeling has been delayed for
several years and has been studied to death. This provision in the
agriculture appropriations bill continues that trend.
Country-of-origin labeling is good for American farmers and good for
American consumers. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to stand up for their constituents and vote for the Rehberg/
Hooley amendment.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for
yielding me this time. I certainly think that of all the discussions we
have had on this floor, everyone on both sides of the aisle has nothing
but the best intentions, and I respect that. I think that as we move
forward in the protection of our food supply, it is important for us
not to burden an industry with requirements and costs that go above and
beyond what is necessary for us to protect the public health and
safety. I think that this bill goes too far when it absolutely requires
mandatory labeling of the products.
I think that we can do this on a voluntary basis, give our producers
the right to put the label that they wish as far as the origin of their
product on their product, and put it on the grocery store shelf and see
what happens. We have no indication that just labeling the country of
origin makes a significant difference in the marketing of these
products, and I think it is an unnecessary extra layer of regulation
that we are about to put on an industry that many times has a very
difficult time staying in business anyway.
I rise in opposition to this amendment and recognize that everyone on
both sides of the issue has nothing but the best of intentions and
certainly wishes the industry well and especially our grass-roots
producers. We want to do what is necessary to help them all we can. But
I still would encourage a ``no'' vote on this amendment and look
forward to seeing this issue at some date, maybe long after I am gone
from this place, resolved, because it has been around a long time.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the distinguished chairman of the Committee
on Agriculture.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time,
and I join him in rising in strong opposition to this amendment. This
amendment is foolhardy just like the underlying provision that was
placed in the farm bill at the last minute. We debated this thoroughly
in the House Agriculture Committee prior to the writing of that farm
bill and the committee members, 51 members, all from agricultural
districts, overwhelmingly rejected this amendment as not in the best
interest of America's farmers and ranchers. The Senate held no
hearings, insisted on this provision, and it was put into law.
What we found after it was put into law was that it does harm. It
does exactly the opposite of what farmers and ranchers intended. It
increases the cost an estimated $10 per head for cattle, $1.50 for
hogs, a similar amount for sheep; and it has the effect, the opposite
of what was intended. It will make our products less competitive with
foreign meat products, not more competitive. That is wrongheaded.
Secondly, it imposes unbelievably stringent liability on the
retailers, and every one of them is writing their own separate set of
regulations, so that if this law is allowed to take effect, and I
commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) for postponing that
because we need to have a voluntary system, if it goes into effect, we
are going to have a separate set of regulations for each retailer that
farmers and ranchers will have to comply with in order to get their
products sold. Once again they will say no liability risk if we buy the
foreign product, no problem complying with additional regulations, they
are going to buy more foreign product, not less.
Finally, last year I offered in the Committee on Agriculture
legislation to do this the right way, to make it voluntary. When we did
so, again the committee members overwhelmingly voted not to do this
mandatory system, but to make it voluntary. That is what we should
continue to work toward today. The way to do that is to keep the
provision of the gentleman from Texas in this bill and delay the
implementation of this very bad legislation.

[[Page H4241]]

Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).
Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of this amendment
to strike the language which would once again delay full implementation
and rightful implementation of country-of-origin labeling for meat and
meat products. Congress authorized mandatory COOL in the 2002 farm
bill, and delaying it further is an injustice to American farmers,
ranchers, and consumers.
According to the Food and Drug Administration, which is the Federal
agency charged with ensuring food safety, less than 1 percent of all
food products imported into the United States are inspected by customs.
If a meat product enters the country shelf-ready, such as ground beef,
it is not required at all to be inspected by the USDA. A USDA approval
stamp only appears on meat products which have been transformed into a
graded cut. What this means is that less than 1 percent of the beef
that is imported from foreign countries is inspected by the USDA. The
USDA is in place to protect us. As a housewife and a mother, I would
gladly pay a few extra cents on every pound of hamburger or on every
pound of beef that I buy if I knew that that beef was produced in the
United States, because I would have a sense of safety that my family
was eating meat that was inspected, because all American beef is
inspected.
Essentially, a shipment such as ground beef could be imported into
America from a foreign country and wind up on a family's dinner table
having never been inspected by American authorities. Without the
implementation of mandatory COOL, we will continue under a voluntary
program, and the status quo clearly does not effectively protect the
safety of American consumers.
America's agriculture industry produces some of the safest, highest
quality products in the world. If given a chance, Americans will choose
American products time and time again.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz).
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Bonilla provision
to delay implementing mandatory country of origin labeling, which is
known as COOL, for meat and meat products for 1 year. This distinction
is important. This delay is for meat and associated products alone. In
the 2002 farm bill, we added the COOL requirement for fruits and
vegetables. The conference, however, expanded the mandate to meat,
fish, perishable agricultural commodities, and peanuts. As most things
not vetted by committees, these regulations brought a number of
problems and unintended consequences. Several government and private
studies have identified numerous costs added, especially for consumers.
American families should not pay the price for marketing beef without
it being any safer than it is now. The House has previously voted to
delay mandatory COOL in order to review the law and develop a voluntary
option. The Bonilla provision to delay COOL labeling for meat is the
right thing to do. I ask the House to join me in keeping this provision
and oppose the motion to strike.
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

{time} 1430

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I hear a lot of talk about voluntary, but we have no mandatory right
to recall tainted products. We have voluntary labeling of drugs, which
can hurt people. We have voluntary marketing studies after a drug has
been brought to market. When are we going to do something that makes
sure that we are protecting people's interests?
Country-of-origin labeling is about providing people the information
they need to make an informed choice to protect the safety of their
families. Thirty-five other countries that we trade with, including
Canada, Mexico, members of the European Union, have country-of-origin
labeling. Seven out of ten people say they are willing to pay more to
know where their food is coming from.
Food imports are increasing. The number of inspections of imported
meat is actually decreasing. Consumers have a right to know, given the
fact that we continue to have major recalls of meat products. This year
we have had over 30 recalls.
This effort is about being able to trace back contaminated product in
the event of a recall. Knowing the source of an outbreak is a critical
part of the process so that we can quickly take action to prevent
people from getting sick. It is critically important considering the 76
million sicknesses, 5,000 deaths that occur every year from food-borne
illness.
Some say that if we halt the implementation of the country-of-origin
labeling for meat, it will allow more time to consider the impact on
the food industry. Congress has given the USDA more than 2 years to
design a program that is fair to all parties including industry and
consumers. Country-of-origin labeling will not violate trade
agreements, lead to retaliation. It will not bankrupt the food
industry. It simply says to consumers they will know where their food
comes from. We owe the American people that.
I urge my colleagues to support the Rehberg-Hooley amendment.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me
this time.
I would address it this way, that I am cool towards mandatory COOL,
not towards Montana or my colleague from up there. We have a situation
here where we have our cart ahead of our horse. We cannot identify our
meat until we can identify where it comes from.
We have initiated a trace-back system for an animal ID in this
Congress. That needs to be done first. I introduced that amendment in
the Committee on Agriculture last year. Identify where the livestock
comes from first, then have the discussion about whether it is
mandatory or whether it is going to be an option for our producers. And
whether it is a benefit to us from an economic standpoint, a retail
standpoint, that really needs to be looked at from the marketing
perspective and the more voluntary perspective. But I say delay that
until we know where these animals come from. We are going to get that
done in this Congress in the next couple of years, and then we can take
a look at it from the perspective of what is the most legitimate
approach. But right now we have our cart in front of our horse.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Conaway), a distinguished Member from the great City of
Midland.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to my good colleagues
from Montana and others who have spoken in favor of this, I rise in
opposition to it.
It is not about food safety. If it were about food safety, then the
52 percent of meat that Americans consume would be involved in this
labeling process, and that is not the case. Any meat consumed in retail
food establishments is not affected by this labeling. So when one goes
into their local restaurant and orders a steak, it will not come out
labeled as to where that steak comes from. So if it was really about
food safety, my colleagues would be speaking about that.
It is really a marketing program, a heavy-handed approach by this
Federal Government to demand a marketing program that may or may not
work. The voluntary COOL program that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Goodlatte) is proposing, of which I am a cosponsor, will give the
industry an opportunity to design a system that works for them. We all
have to look at the Certified Angus Beef programs and Idaho potatoes to
understand that the free market can, in fact, devise labeling
opportunities or labeling programs that do benefit consumers and allow
consumers to make that choice. So I stand against this amendment, with
all due respect.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As my colleagues noticed, this is about marketing essentially, and it
is

[[Page H4242]]

about the fact that an entire industry was created in places like Texas
to take advantage of cheap Mexican calves, bringing them across the
border, fattening them up, and selling them in our food system without
any knowledge of where they come from. Born, raised, and processed
means we are proud of USA agriculture, USA livestock.
There is an unintended consequence, Mr. Chairman. The unintended
consequence is the gentleman from Texas's (Mr. Ortiz) very own State
loves the country-of-origin labeling that was mandated by that same
farm bill on fish. I will read one more time that quote: ``It's a win-
win situation for Texas,'' said Agriculture Commissioner Susan Combs.
``Texans love to buy Texas products, and this way they'll know they're
getting the quality they love. In turn, sales will increase, providing
a boost to Texas shrimp producers and the State's economy.''
They love it when it works to their advantage. They are opposed to it
when they think it might change something.
This is a good piece of legislation. It may not, it may not be a
health issue to the gentleman from Texas, but it obviously is a health
issue to some of our trading partners.
On December 23, when the cow was found in the State of Washington
that had Mad Cow disease, it took exactly 24 hours for 60 of our
trading partners to shut off our exports, 60 of them. One-third have
now reopened those markets. Our largest export market has not, and that
is Japan. So it is a health issue with them.
The problem that exists right now, and it was very quietly done, but
on May 21, as I mentioned before, the state of Durango in Mexico can no
longer send live cattle to the United States along the Texas border
because they were mixing cattle between two regions within their state,
one that has the ability to be exported and the other that does not.
These are the trading partners that are sending us their livestock that
we do not have the ability to label where it came from.
Unfortunately, bovine TB is contagious, infectious, and a
communicable disease. It affects cattle, bison, deer, elk, goats, and
other species, including humans, and it could be fatal.
We want to know where our livestock came from. Is it so simple that
we cannot understand that we currently exempt some of the issues or
some of the products like beads and ball bearings and bolts and nuts
and buttons, feathers, hair nets? There are not many exceptions to the
labeling laws in this country: rags, ribbons, screws, sponges, wicking,
candle, and livestock. Livestock because it is about the pocketbook.
I am here to stand before the Members today and ask them to support
the amendment. Give us the opportunity to show that labeling livestock
will be met with the same kind of enthusiasm by the consumer and those
of us who are truly cattle producers. I am a producer. I still have to
deal with this. Perhaps I will have to pay for it. But I know the
American consumer will want the opportunity to purchase my livestock
because I know where it came from. It is a closed herd. It was born, it
was raised, and it is processed in America.
That is what makes America great, is the opportunity to label.
Voluntary does not work. If voluntary worked, we would be doing it now.
But it does not. Why? Because the meat processors and the supermarkets
will not allow us the opportunity to have it labeled. They say they
can. They say they might. But we cannot make them, and when we cannot
make them, we have no influence nor ability to do it.
Fruits and nuts will soon have country-of-origin labeling as well. It
has been allowed to move forward, and what they did is they segregated
our support for country-of-origin labeling. They let the fish go. The
Texas producers love it. They let fruits and nuts go. California and
the rest of the producers will like it. But they will not let livestock
go for purely economic reasons.
It is time we send a message to those that are standing in the way
and allow us the opportunity to tell the American consumer born,
raised, and processed in America means something. Buy American.
(Mr. HAYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks at this point in the Record.)
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the amendment
offered by Mr. Rehberg and Ms. Hooley, I applaud Chairman Bonilla for
including a provision in the agriculture appropriations bill that would
limit USDA's funding for implementing the mandatory country-of-origin
labeling law for meat and meat products. The country-of-origin labeling
laws as currently written clearly requires more Congressional attention
before going into effect by September 30, 2006.
As a member of the Agriculture Committee and as Chairman of the
Livestock and Horticulture Subcommittee, I have held hearings to
discuss how mandatory country-of-origin labeling will affect the entire
livestock industry. I have personally heard the numerous concerns of
producers, processors, suppliers, and retailers in trying to implement
this onerous program. These hearings raised many questions, and the
livestock witnesses specifically pointed out the tremendous potential
for increased costs and unintended consequences. All of the witnesses,
regardless of being for or against country-of-origin labeling,
unanimously stated that this is not a food safety issue but a marketing
issue. Saying labeling is needed because of recent cases of BSE, for
example, is bogus--especially since this particular disease does not
occur in the muscle cuts we consume!

I have also heard concerns from many of my constituents in North
Carolina about this issue. I can tell you that not one of them has said
this law will bring them additional revenue or market advantages. They
all express their deep concern that this law will instead cause
significant burdens and headaches in order to be in compliance with the
law.
Having participated in the hearings and listening to the worries of
my constituents, I firmly believe a voluntary approach is a better
solution. I am pleased to cosponsor the Meat Promotion Act introduced
by Agriculture Committee Chairman Goodlatte which requires the
Secretary of Agriculture to establish a voluntary program for labeling
meat and meat products. I believe this legislation better fits the true
intent of country-of-origin labeling--to maximize producer benefits and
avoid the costs and regulatory intrusions that a government-mandated
program would entail.

Unfortunately, a ``Fire, Ready, Aim'' approach led to the creation of
the current mandatory country-of-origin labeling law. This issue
clearly needs further attention and delaying the implementation of the
law for meat and meat products is a step in the right direction. I
would like to reiterate that the provision included in the agriculture
appropriations bill only affects meat and meat products.
I urge my colleagues to support the appropriations bill and reject
the Rehberg-Hooley amendment.
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. REHBERG. 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 Montana (Mr. Rehberg)
will be postponed.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, last night I went before the Committee on Rules to seek
the ability to offer an amendment to the bill today that would have
given the Food and Drug Administration, the FDA, two critically
important new authorities to improve the agency's drug safety
operations. It would have given FDA the authority to require drug
companies to conduct post-marketing studies of FDA-approved drugs and
the authority to mandate changes to the labels of FDA-approved drugs.
But the Committee on Rules would not allow the amendment.
Almost every week we hear about another unsafe drug and the
significant harm that those drugs are doing to millions of people. Yet
Congress has done nothing. The most recent case is the cholesterol-
lowering drug Crestor, which a recent study found is significantly more
likely than other drugs in its class to cause muscle deterioration that
can lead to kidney disease and kidney failure.
Flip through the headlines of the last few months, and we will see
many more examples. Of the two most significant drug failures of the
last year, they are antidepressants and Vioxx. For years, evidence was
building that antidepressants seem to cause an increased rate of
suicide among users,

[[Page H4243]]

particularly young people. The FDA, however, failed to heed this
evidence and delayed taking any action for years because the agency
said it did not have enough data to do anything about these reports of
suicide.
The reason for this was FDA could not order the drug companies to
conduct further clinical trials after a drug is approved. When the
agency finally did have enough data back in 2003, it first sought to
hide it but eventually told antidepressant makers that there needed to
be a warning on suicide. However, it took more than 9 months before
that warning was placed on any drug label because the FDA had to
negotiate with the drug companies over the label's wording. Patients
went 9 extra months without knowing all the risks.
Vioxx was finally removed from the market last September because it
increased the risk of heart attacks and strokes. Notably, it was the
drug manufacturer, Merck, that removed the drug, not the FDA. An
estimated 90,000 to 140,000 Americans suffered heart attacks and
strokes as a result of Vioxx. Of these, 30 to 40 percent, or as many as
60,000 people, probably died.
Dr. David Graham, a heroic doctor at the FDA, put these numbers into
perspective when he testified before the Senate Finance Committee last
November. He compared the number of heart attacks and strokes caused by
Vioxx to plane crashes. Dr. Graham stated the Vioxx numbers are the
equivalent of two to four airplane crashes every week, week in and week
out, week after week, for the past 5 years. If it really were planes
that were crashing, then the Congress would be doing something about
it. Yet we have done nothing to empower the FDA to prevent another
Vioxx.
FDA knew about the dangers of Vioxx more than 5 years ago, and in
2002 the agency decided Vioxx's label needed to have a warning about
the increased risk of heart disease. Yet it took nearly 14 months
before that warning was added to Vioxx's label because the FDA again
had to negotiate the wording with the drug company. FDA could not
simply tell Merck that its label must say Vioxx causes increased risk
of heart attacks and strokes. Nor could FDA order Merck to conduct a
new clinical trial about Vioxx's safety when the FDA learned of other
studies indicating safety problems.

{time} 1445

My amendment would change that. These commonsense changes are nearly
universally accepted by patient safety organizations, endorsed by
nearly every major medical journal, and even by a few drug companies.
FDA's own director of the Office of New Drugs has said she believes it
would be extremely helpful for the agency to have these powers and
authorities. They are also endorsed on a bipartisan basis, including by
Senators Charles Grassley and Thad Cochran, who have cosponsored a bill
that would do almost exactly what I am proposing today.
These changes cannot wait to happen. They cannot wait any longer.
Delay is going to cost lives, many lives, tens of thousands of lives in
all probability. The amendment should have been made in order by the
Committee on Rules, and I am asking the House now today to make this
amendment in order. This amendment needs to be considered by the full
House of Representatives, and it needs to be considered for no other
reason than because by not considering it, we are placing hundreds of
thousands of people across this country in dire jeopardy.
We need a Food and Drug Administration that can deal with the drug
companies and with the medical manufacturing establishments that it
allegedly regulates, deal with them in an effective way, so that we can
have true regulation on behalf of the safety and security of the
American people, which we do not have today and which this Congress has
refused to bring about.
So I am taking this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to bring this
amendment to the floor of the House. I want this amendment considered,
and I hope that every Member of the House will see it his or her duty
to adopt this amendment today.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Hinchey:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section the
following:
Sec. 7__. (a) Postmarket Studies.--Chapter V of the the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 351 et seq.)
is amended by inserting after section 505B the following
section:

``SEC. 505C. POSTMARKET STUDIES REGARDING SAFETY OF DRUGS;
PHASE 4 STUDIES.

``The Secretary may require that the manufacturer of an
approved drug conduct one or more studies to confirm or
refute an empirical or theoretical hypothesis of a
significant safety issue with the drug (whether raised with
respect to the product directly or with respect to the class
of the product) that has been identified pursuant to--
``(1) the MedWatch postmarket surveillance system;
``(2) a clinical or epidemiological study;
``(3) the scientific literature;
``(4) a foreign government that regulates drugs or devices;
``(5) an international organization concerned with the
safety or effectiveness of drugs or devices; or
``(6) such other sources as the Secretary determines to be
appropriate.''.
(b) Order Regarding Postmarket Labeling.--Section 502 of
the the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 352)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(x) If it is a drug and the Secretary determines that its
labeling fails to provide information, including specific
wording, required by the Secretary by order on the basis that
the information is necessary to ensure its safe and effective
use.''.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) is recognized
in support of his amendment.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I know that this issue is controversial. I
know that there are Members of the House who really do not want to
address it this afternoon. But we should put that aside. We should put
it aside because the safety and security of the American people are at
stake here.
The Food and Drug Administration was established by this Congress in
order to ensure that pharmaceuticals and subsequently various forms of
medical devices and other materials which are used by people who are
ill, that those devices and materials can be used by people in a way
that is safe and secure and sound. But the fact of the matter is that
that is not happening, and we have the ocular proof in front of us
every single day.
I mentioned a few moments ago the situation of antidepressants. These
antidepressants came on the market without proper, careful review; and
in addition to that, they began to be marketed for off-label uses. As a
result, large numbers of teenagers, young people, people in their
twenties, began to use them when they should not have been using them,
and the usage of those antidepressants induced suicidal potential in
those people, and many of them carried it out. Many, many people took
their lives in direct relationship to the use of those antidepressant
drugs.
When that became apparent, the Food and Drug Administration was not
able to deal effectively with the drug manufacturers because they did
not have the authority. They do not have the authority to tell the drug
manufacturers that when a problem becomes evident after the drug is on
the market that the drug company should, at the very least, change the
label, put information on the label that tells people this kind of
experience has been shown to happen by this group of people so that
people can be warned about it and therefore not be likely to take it
and so that doctors can understand that and not be likely to prescribe
it.
That simple act would save the lives of tens of thousands of people.
Failing to do it almost inevitably is going to cost the lives of tens
of thousands of Americans, because it will not be much longer before we
see another antidepressant situation or Cox-2 inhibitor situation,
Vioxx situation, come on the market if we do not change the rules, if
we do not give the FDA the power to deal effectively with these drug
manufacturers.
The Vioxx case is a very clear, strong case in point. After a certain
period of time when that drug was on the market, it became obvious that
people who were taking it were suffering strokes and/or heart attacks.
The FDA, when it became aware of that, was not able to do anything
effectively about it. They did not even ask the drug company to take
the drug off the market.

[[Page H4244]]

Finally, Merck came to the table and properly removed Vioxx from the
market, but only after hundreds of thousands of people in this country
were seriously affected, and we estimate at least 60,000 people lost
their lives, and the number may be higher than that; and all of that
began to get the attention of the press and people across the country
began to understand it.
Now, for God's sake, what are we doing here? Are we just going to
stand by idly while these circumstances continue to happen, while more
and more drugs come on the market, week after week, month after month,
while more and more people take them without understanding the
implications and more and more people suffer, even die, as a result of
that?
This Congress has the responsibility to act. We need to make that
Food and Drug Administration live up to its responsibilities. And by
simply saying in a technical way that, no, we cannot do it today, that
does not meet the need, not by any stretch of the imagination.
This amendment needs to come to the floor, and this amendment needs
to get the kind of attention that it properly deserves on behalf of the
safety and security and the lives of the American people and to be
adopted.
So I move the amendment, and I ask my colleagues to embrace it today.
Vote for it; support it. Let us pass it this afternoon.

Point of Order

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes
legislation in an appropriation 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 ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard on the point of
order.
Mr. Chairman, it is hard for me to believe that the rules of this
House do not help ensure that the people we represent can trust their
government. It is hard for me to believe that the rules of the House
would mean that this House can busy itself telling other people how
they should deal with end-of-life issues for dear ones, telling
independent courts that they should not be quite so independent, and
yet would not allow the supposedly greatest legislative body in the
world to deal with a direct obligation of government, which is to
ensure the public safety of the American people.
This amendment would be in order if no Member objects to it. The
Committee on Rules, as I understand, when they passed out the rule from
the Committee on Rules, they did not protect this amendment under the
rule. That does not mean that it cannot be considered by the House. The
House can only avoid dealing with this issue if a Member chooses to
block the House from acting on it.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge the gentleman from Texas to withdraw his
point of order so that we can vote on this most crucial issue. But if
the gentleman does not withdraw his motion, then I would, reluctantly,
as I am sure would the sponsor of the amendment, have to concede the
point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard?
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak on the point of order.
Mr. Chairman, I want to echo my colleagues' comments, because I think
that we have an obligation. In my opening comments, I said that I
believed that this bill is about what the House of Representatives and
Members who are part of this effort have been asked to do, and we have
been asked to protect the public interest on a whole variety of
measures, and, in this case, we are talking about life and death.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman must confine her remarks to the point
of order.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, it would seem to me that the regular order
of the House would be to allow legislation that in fact meets the
definition or the goal of the mission that we have been entrusted with.
I wish that the Committee on Rules would have made this amendment in
order because it is so critical to public safety.
I concur with my colleague when he says if it is not made in order,
then we have to concede the point of order. But what we are conceding
is the life and death of American people, and that is not the regular
order.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this amendment proposes directly to change
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 No. 9 Offered by Mr. Schwarz of michigan

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

Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Schwarz of Michigan:
Add at the end (before the short title) the following new
section:
Sec. 7__. It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of
Agriculture should use the transfer authority provided by
section 442 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7772) to
implement the strategic plan developed by the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service for the eradication of
Emerald Ash Borer in the States of Michigan, Ohio, and
Indiana.

Mr. SCHWARZ of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, CCC funds are transferred to
APHIS because of foreign Animals, Pests & Diseases that have come into
the United States and are destroying agriculture resources and
products. Since this is a tight budget year and the dollars
appropriated will not fully take care of the emergency situation of the
spread of EAB and the millions of ash trees in need of more attention
from the CCC and OMB.
Therefore, this amendment is a sense of Congress to support the
requests of USDA and APHIS to fund the eradication program of EAB
within Michigan before it spreads to other states.
Michigan has natural barriers which are the great lakes that provide
a natural containment with this emergency eradication plan.
This is an emergency situation for our agriculture community and as
with any invasive species, we continue to run in to the obstacle of
funding from OMB. With this amendment we want the OMB to reconsider the
severity of the EAB situation. This amendment is meant to suggest, in
strong terms, that it is Congress's intent that the mechanism within
this statute is to be used to meet the foreign pest emergency needs of
Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, Maryland & Michigan.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCHWARZ of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has discussed this amendment
with us and with the minority; and to forgo further debate, I would be
happy to accept the amendment.
Mr. SCHWARZ of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank
the chairman and am delighted that he has decided to accept the
amendment, and we will move on.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Schwarz amendment
emphasizing the intent of Congress that full funding for the control of
Emerald Ash Borer must be provided. I had intended to offer an
amendment emphasizing the need for emergency funding and thank Chairman
Bonilla for his work with us on this issue, and with respect and
appreciation knowing we still have much to work on will not extend
floor debate today.
It is vital that we take action as quickly as possible to deal with
control and containment this year. USDA, at the order of the Office of
Management and Budget, has not been able to fully respond to the
requests for funds from Ohio and Michigan. Ohio recently requested an
additional $10.1 million that is needed immediately.
The Emerald Ash Borer was identified in Michigan in July, 2002. It
has been in Michigan for perhaps five years, having come in packing
material from Asia.
Since then, several counties in southeastern Michigan and now
counties in northwestern Ohio have been infected with this creature.
Literally billions of ash trees are at risk unless this creature is
stopped. Regrettably, there is no known way to eradicate the insect
without starving it from new wood sources. So as trees by the thousands
are being cut down in our region.
As I said, the State of Ohio has recently asked the Department of
Agriculture for an additional $10.1 million in emergency funding to

[[Page H4245]]

control the spread of this insect. This is in addition to the $11.6
million that was requested earlier this year, although USDA provided
only $10.2 million. This is in addition to more than $50 million that
has already been provided to Michigan to control the spread of the
insect from its primary infestation site.
Mr. Chairman, Ohio needs more funding now to control this insect for
which it bears no responsibility. Neighborhoods are being devastated in
Ohio, as they already have been in Michigan. Businesses are adversely
affected. Property values are being adversely affected. The longer we
take the provide effective controls, the more damage will be caused,
the broader the area of infestation will become, and the more it will
ultimately cost to end this infestation.
I had planned to offer my own amendment calling for emergency use of
funds to deal with this problem, even though I know that the bill
already provides some funding for emerald ash control in the coming
year--$14 million even though expert opinion suggests that we will need
$55 million. Hopefully this money will come via the emergency route.
Chairman Bonilla and ranking member DeLauro, I thank you for your
support. I want to work with you to secure the right level of funding
to deal with this disease, as well as the many other invasive species
pests that plague several states. They may be different in their
makeup, but they are equally devastating to the communities they
infest.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Schwarz).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Hinchey:
Page 83, after line 19, insert the following section:
Sec. 7__. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used--
(1) to grant a waiver of a financial conflict of interest
requirement pursuant to section 505(n)(4) of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act for any voting member of an
advisory committee or panel of the Food and Drug
Administration; or
(2) to make a certification under section 208(b)(3) of
title 18, United States Code, for any such voting member.

{time} 1500

Mr. HINCHEY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on
this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 30 minutes, to
be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the
opponent.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) will control
15 minutes, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) will control 15
minutes in opposition.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit the Food and Drug
Administration from appointing scientists who have conflicts of
interest to FDA advisory committees. The amendment does not change
current law; it simply makes sure that the FDA is adhering to current
law.
The FDA is charged with protecting the public health and, to assist
with this mission, the FDA relies heavily on advisory committees
composed of outside scientists to guide the agency policy on the safety
and effectiveness of drugs and medical devices when questions arise
regarding those products. While the FDA is not bound by the decisions
of these panels, the agency itself calls advisory committees one of its
most important resources for helping to regulate the over 150,000
marketed medical products that the FDA oversees.
Because of the critically important nature of these committees, there
should be no question as to whether the committee members are looking
out for the public health. But recent FDA actions have created serious
doubts about whether committee members are serving only the public
interests and, as a result, industry biases now taint many advisory
panel decisions.
Over the past few years, the FDA has routinely waived conflict of
interest prohibitions and appointed scientists with direct conflicts of
interest to serve on these critical public panels. These appointments
completely undermine the objectivity of this outside advice and bias
the committee's recommendations, which are reached by a vote of the
panel members, some of whom have financial ties to the products being
reviewed by that very same panel.
There have been numerous high-profile examples of this over the past
18 months. Just this past April, for example, the FDA convened an
advisory committee to examine whether or not to allow silicon breast
implants back on the market. That committee contained a scientist who
had just recently made a promotional video for a manufacturer of those
implants.
Two months prior to that, the FDA convened an advisory panel to
review the safety of Cox-2 inhibitors, drugs like Vioxx, which have
caused tens of thousands of heart attacks and strokes. Ten of the 32
scientists on that panel had direct financial links to the
manufacturers of those drugs. When it came time for the committee to
make its recommendations, those ties made all the difference. Without
the votes of the ten conflicted scientists, two of those three drugs
and the Cox-2 inhibitor class would have been voted down by the panel,
instead of receiving the very narrow support and approval they did as a
result of those conflicted scientists' votes.
Last year, when there was a huge controversy around the link between
antidepressants and suicide, especially among young people, the FDA
convened an advisory panel to make recommendations on how the agency
should handle those drugs. Three of the 11 scientists on that committee
had been paid consultants to the manufacturers of those
antidepressants.
These examples are just the tip of the iceberg. Advisory panels on
OxyContin, oncology drugs, even over-the-counter athletes' foot creams,
all had scientists with conflicts of interest. Almost every advisory
committee meeting begins with an FDA statement waiving the conflicts of
interest of some of the scientists on that panel.
If you think that scientists who rely on drug companies for their
financial wherewithal are going to recommend that the FDA take action
that will harm the company that is paying them, then you are living in
a fantasy world.
The FDA claims that it cannot find enough qualified scientists
without conflicts of interest to fill its advisory committees. This
statement is laughable on its surface and an insult to the thousands of
independent doctors across this country. It is also not accurate. As
the medical journal, The Lancet, recently editorialized, ``It is hard
to believe that in a country with 125 medical schools, not to mention
the pool of international experts, the FDA cannot find experts who do
not have financial ties with companies whose products are under
review.'' Of course, the FDA can find scientists without conflicts of
interest. They just do not want to do it, and they are not doing it.
Advisory committees are critical parts of the FDA's regulatory
scheme, and they should be free of any direct conflict of interest.
Without this, there is no way to assure the public that a panel's
recommendations are fair and unbiased and in the interest of the public
health.
After one of the most tumultuous years in the FDA's history, this
amendment is needed to restore the public's confidence and integrity
that has been lost in the FDA's advisory system. A wide range of public
health groups support this amendment, and numerous recent editorials
have called for this kind of reform. I urge all of my colleagues to
support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Let me explain
what this extreme restriction on the Food and Drug Administration would
do. The amendment would not allow funding to grant conflict of interest
waivers for any Food and Drug Administration advisory committee. The
effect would

[[Page H4246]]

be that the top experts in the field of vaccine research or cancer
treatments or cardiac devices would not be able to advise the Federal
Government about vaccines, biological products, medical devices, and
drugs.
The conflict of interest waivers exist so that the most knowledgeable
scientists, the ones you would want to consult if your own family was
ill, can advise government agencies. These top scientists are few in
number and very specialized. Most of them have worked in research
sponsored by industry at some point in their careers. We in Congress
devised this waiver system so that such experts could serve the
government when the need for their services outweighed the potential of
conflict of interest due to financial ties to the industry.
Since many fields of research are specialized and unique, the
conflict of interest waivers are necessary. The granting of a waiver is
not pro forma but a measured decision by an impartial party. In some
cases, waivers are granted only for participation in the advisory group
discussion, and the individual is not permitted to vote on the advisory
committee recommendation.
I would also like to draw the attention of my colleagues to the term
``advisory.'' Advisory committees make recommendations to FDA but do
not vote on product approvals. Product approval decisions are made by
federally employed scientists.
I would ask my colleagues not to cripple the advisory committee
system by making it impossible to recruit the appropriate level of
scientific expertise. Please vote no on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I rise to speak on the Hinchey amendment to require that the FDA stop
waiving conflict of interest revelations by their advisors and to start
to make an affirmative search for scientists who can give unconflicted
advice to this critically important agency.
Unfortunately, there is abundant evidence that scientists are being
invited onto and accepted onto these committees, even when they tell
the FDA that they have a conflict. They are permitted to serve,
regardless of conflict. This must stop.
Other agencies, such as the NIH, have regularly found unconflicted,
fully qualified professional advisors so that the agency can receive
the best, unbiased advice possible.
I am mindful that there may be scientists whose expertise deserves to
be presented to an advisory committee, and nothing in this amendment,
as I understand it, precludes these individuals from being asked to
testify before a committee.
When enacted, this amendment will also start to contribute to and
rebuild the credibility of the actions of FDA. We cannot have even the
aura of influence by the pharmaceutical industry or other regulated
industries when it comes to the FDA.
Surely, in a country that is renowned for its scientific and medical
expertise, I think we have 125 medical schools in the United States,
that it is possible to find scientists without conflicts of interest to
advise the FDA and to protect the public health.
I urge support for the Hinchey amendment.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, can I inquire as to how much time is
remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York has 8 minutes remaining.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, is there anyone on the other side who
wishes to speak on the amendment?
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa has 13 minutes remaining and
reserves the balance of his time.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for
yielding me this time.
As I hear this discussion move forward, I find it nothing short of
absolutely amazing that anybody can rise to defend the current system.
The pharmaceutical industry in this country is corrupt from top to
bottom. They have corrupted the Food and Drug Administration. They have
corrupted academia to the point where they pay anybody that might ever
issue an opinion about any of their products, and this continues to get
worse day by day. We have evidence to all of these things, and it is
absolutely and utterly ridiculous that we do not hold FDA accountable
to provide a system of unbiased opinions so that the American people
can get a safe product. We have seen the results of this corrupt system
and the willingness of our own government to allow the pharmaceutical
industry to continue to rob our own people, and it goes on and on and
on. It is wrong. It does not make any sense. It puts the public health
at risk.
We just had a big debate on whether or not to label meat and where it
comes from. We know what these drugs will do, we have plenty of people
that know what they will do, and when we put the information out there,
anybody can figure it out. You do not have to be all broke out in
brilliance to know when this stuff is bad. But when you are on the
payroll of these companies, folks just kind of seem to have a little
trouble saying, this is a terrible drug and we do not want to put it on
the market. It is a bad idea.
I am the only registered pharmacist in the United States Congress,
and it is astounding to me to see what has happened to this industry in
the last 30 years and the willingness for them to take advantage of the
American people over and over and over again.
Mr. Chairman, if this body is going to do anything to serve the
public health and welfare of our people on this day, we should pass
this amendment, and I thank the gentleman from New York for
courageously bringing it to the floor of this House.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my time.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Hinchey
amendment, and I appreciate the effort he has been doing with these
last two amendments, and I hope we will continue his work, because the
amendment is very important. It will help us put a stop to the conflict
of interests which actually weakens the drug approval process.
The FDA advisory committees are charged with ensuring that the
medicines our families take are safe and effective.

{time} 1515

Current law prohibits conflicts of interest between the members on
the advisory committee and the companies whose drug is being examined
by the advisory committee.
Though the FDA has the authority to waive this prohibition under
certain limited circumstances, this exception has now become the rule,
and too often the FDA places scientists with financial connections to
the drugs they are examining on the advisory committees.
Conflicts of interest create disastrous consequences. In some cases,
one-third of the advisory committee's appointees do part-time
consulting work, research or own stock in the companies whose drugs
they are considering. Such a committee approved the drug Vioxx. As many
as 100,000 people have been injured by taking Vioxx. Had the members of
the advisory committee with ties to the industry been removed, Vioxx
would not have been approved.
Some will argue and some may argue that scientists with financial
connections to the industry may still be unbiased. However, this week
an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that senior executives
at Merck threatened to damage a Harvard researcher's career if he
publicly lectured about the health effects of Vioxx.
In such an environment, where those who are trying to help protect
our families are threatened by drug companies, it is inconceivable that
advisory committee members can remain unbiased as they examine their
part-time employer's drugs. The financial interests are too great, not
only for those who sit on the advisory committee, but also the drug
companies who produce these drugs, and do whatever they can to get them
approved.

[[Page H4247]]

We have so much work to do in this area. The Hinchey amendment does
not put any new requirements upon the FDA, merely enforces the law as
is written; and this Congress should stand up and enforce the law as
explained in previous Congresses.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to note that in response to past amendments in the same
effect, the Office of Government Ethics has said the government would
be depriving itself of much of the best and most relevant outside
expertise in many areas.
The amendment would prohibit waivers for financial interests that are
so insubstantial, remote, or inconsequential that they are typically
permitted, even for regular full-time government employees.
They went on to say, existing law strikes the correct balance between
protecting the government from inappropriate conflicts of interest and
recognizing the need for temporary experts who may have unavoidable
conflicts in relevant fields of inquiry. I think those concerns are
relevant to the Hinchey amendment before us and support a ``no'' vote
on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I frankly find the arguments that have been presented
against this amendment, in a word, incredible. They seem to me to be
coming from the entities in our country, in our economy, that need
regulation. It seems as if the words were written by them.
We have 125 medical schools in this country. We have a bevy of expert
scientists who are capable of dealing with these kinds of issues. For
anyone to stand on the floor of this House and say that you cannot
construct a panel, an advisory panel to advise the Food and Drug
Administration with regard to the safety and security of a particular
drug without putting on that panel one-third of the members who are
conflicted in their interests, who are being paid by the economic
entities that are about to be regulated, or should be regulated, or who
have done commercial advertisements for some of those entities, that
you cannot construct a panel without having a third of the members with
that kind of conflict of interest, is the most absurd statement I think
I have ever heard uttered on the floor of this House.
We have scientific bodies throughout our government and throughout
the private sector, throughout the National Institutes of Health,
throughout any number of scientific organizations, who put together
panels; and they are never obliged to include within those panels
people who are conflicted in their interests with regard to the
decisions that are going to be made by those panels. It is ridiculous,
absurd to stipulate that you cannot construct a panel without having
people with a conflict of interest.
I am just asking the Members of this body to tell the Food and Drug
Administration that when you draw together a panel, do the same thing
that other regulatory bodies do. Make sure that among the members of
those panels, there is no one who is conflicted in their interests.
No one who is being monetarily compensated by the entity that is
being regulated; in the case of the drug companies no one who is
getting money from the drug companies, no one who is on the payroll of
drug companies. That is all you have to do. It is a very simple thing.
There are thousands of people to reach out to who are capable and
qualified to come onto those panels and make those kinds of decisions.
To say that you cannot put together a panel without including in it
one-third of the members who are conflicted in their interests is
absolutely ridiculous.
And so, Mr. Chairman, I ask the Members of this body to do something
that is in the best interests of the people of our Nation. Let us have
a Food and Drug Administration that is actually carrying out its
regulatory authorities as this Congress set them up to do.
Let us have an FDA that actually regulates the entities.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, let me just ask a point of inquiry here.
As I understand it, this amendment is for a year's duration?
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. HINCHEY. That is correct.
Ms. DeLAURO. Does it not make sense that we try this to see what is
workable? I mean, we are not talking about in perpetuity. Am I right in
my assessment of that?
Mr. HINCHEY. The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) is
correct. This would simply be for 1 year. It is a trial, in effect; and
we ought to put it in place.
Mr. LATHAM. 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 question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey)
will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Sweeney

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Sweeney:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following new section:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to pay the salaries or expenses of personnel to
inspect horses under section 3 of the Federal Meat Inspection
Act (21 U.S.C. 603) or under the guidelines issued under
section 903 the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform
Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 1901 note; Public Law 104-127).

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on
this amendment and any amendment thereto be limited to 30 minutes to be
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the
opponent.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, several weeks ago we passed on the floor here an
amendment banning the slaughter of wild horses that had been sneaked
into the omnibus bill by a substantial bipartisan vote.
This amendment I offer today is a supplement to that amendment, and
one that we have sought a vote on, an up-or-down vote, for several
years in this body. For that reason in particular, I want to thank the
subcommittee chairman for affording us this opportunity.
The amendment essentially would end the use of taxpayer dollars to
enable and subsidize foreign enterprises, largely operating in
opposition to the vast opinion and support of United States citizens,
and in fact the majority of States have outlawed the slaughter of
horses for human consumption; and yet this process continues on.
Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of misinformation spread about
this issue. The opposition will say this amendment will lead to an
increase in the abuse of horses, or horses running wild in our streets.
Such statements are not true, and I want to offer some facts.
First of all, each year 65,000 horses are slaughtered in this country
for human consumption in Europe and in Asia, not here, where they are
sold as a delicacy.
Another 30,000 are trucked to Canada and Mexico for slaughter.
Misstatement number one, that slaughter is the same as humane
euthanasia, it is not, Mr. Chairman. Slaughter is not the same as
humane euthanasia administered by a veterinarian. Euthanasia of horses
is administered by lethal injection, whereas slaughter is administered
by unskilled, untrained workers using the captive bolt. Many times this
is administered improperly, causing unnecessary pain and suffering
before death, and that is after these horses have been transported in
excess of 1,000 miles in the most inhumane conditions perceived.
Misstatement number two, that if this legislation is successful, we
will

[[Page H4248]]

cause an overpopulation of horses. Passage of this amendment will not
cause an overpopulation of horses, since each year the numbers are
this, about 690,000 horses die in the U.S., many of which are
euthanized by licensed veterinarians.
Slaughter represents only 1 percent of the horses that die each year,
and this would not result in overpopulation of horses as some have
suggested.
Mr. Chairman, it is simply this: Americans do not profit from
slaughtering horses. Horses are not bred in the United States for that
purpose. This is an export-driven market. Foreigners eat our horses and
foreign companies make money off the sale of the meat. This amendment
simply says that the use of American taxpayer dollars to pay for the
salaries and the work of USDA inspectors ought to stop, and those
resources ought to be committed to making sure the food supply and the
food chain here in this country are fully protected.
Let us stop this practice, a practice that flies in the face of
generations of precedent here in Congress and strong opposition by the
American public.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to this amendment,
and yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), for whom I have a great
deal of respect, has worked on this issue for some time. I know he also
has a separate legislating bill that he is trying to move through the
process, where this issue and this whole topic could be more
appropriately addressed through the authorizing committee.
This amendment will shut down an industry without having a hearing,
or any due process. The amendment creates a crisis for animal health
issues. It prohibits USDA from inspecting horses that may have West
Nile virus, or vesicular stomatitis, both of which can affect other
animals and humans if those horses are destined for slaughter.
The estimated cost to feed and care for 50,000 horses is at least 60
to $100 million per year. Who will pay, or will more horses go to the
rendering plant instead? What is the real effect of this measure? There
is no way of knowing, because it has not been vetted through the
process.
Demand for the product will not change. Almost all of the meat from
the U.S. is exported, and those countries will simply find another
source. I oppose this amendment very strongly.
Mr. Chairman, I yield for as much time as he may consume to the
chairman of the authorizing committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Goodlatte).
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment. This amendment is a piece of legislation that has been
introduced by Members of the House that would ban horse slaughter in
the country.
And, quite frankly, this legislation has been opposed by me and many
others, but it is also a fact that this particular amendment is far
worse than the legislation that the gentleman has offered for this
reason: the principal concern stated by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Sweeney) is that the manner of the transport and the actual
slaughter of these horses is inhumane.
But this amendment would simply limit the inspection of the horses
for the purpose of slaughter; does not in any way stop what his other
legislation at least attempts to do, that is, the transport of the
horses to Canada, Mexico or anywhere else for the purpose of slaughter.
The effect of that then is that the inhumane transport and the
slaughter itself continue, but the horses are transported far greater
distances.
Now, the gentleman makes reference to the fact that this is only 1
percent of the horses that die each year. And he cites 65,000 as a
figure. But I would suggest to the gentleman that he is way, way, way
off on his numbers, because there are not 65,000 times 100 or 6\1/2\
million horses dying each year in this country.
With the average life expectancy of a horse of more than 25 years,
that would mean that we have more than 150 million horses in the United
States. We do not have anywhere near that number. So this percentage is
a far higher percentage.
That gives rise to the concern raised by the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Bonilla) and many others that you are going to have hundreds of
thousands of unwanted horses, perhaps at the rate of as many as 50,000
a year according to the American Veterinary Medical Association. At a
cost of $2,000 per horse to take care of them, that is a hundred
million dollars times the average life expectancy that would remain in
the lives of these horses if they were not sent to slaughter.
If that average is 10 years, you are talking about a billion dollars
after you get 10 years out from now in terms of having to support and
take care of these horses.
Now, the gentleman says no problem with that, but the evidence is
pretty sparse that there will not be any problem with that because no
country anywhere ever, ever has banned the slaughter of horses. That is
what his amendment would accomplish.

{time} 1530

So I suggest that that is a very, very bad idea with far-reaching
complications.
I am not by any means alone in this concern. More than 60 reputable
horse organizations, animal health organizations, and agricultural
organizations have banded together to oppose this amendment, and they
are some of the most respected people who own horses and take care of
horses in the United States. The American Quarter Horse Association,
the largest association of horse owners in the world, strongly opposes
this amendment. The American Painted Horse Association, the second
largest association of horse owners, opposes this amendment. More than
a dozen State horse councils, including the New York State Horse
Council and the Virginia State Horse Council, oppose the gentleman's
legislation.
It is also opposed by those who take care of the health of our
horses, very respected organizations like the American Veterinarian
Medical Association, the American Association of Equine Practitioners.
More than 7,000 horse doctors, the people who take care of horses
themselves, are concerned about the implications of what this amendment
will have if it is allowed to go into effect and ban the slaughter of
horses.
Now, I do not believe anybody in this room eats horses. What this is
about is what is the best approach for the humane treatment of horses,
and the American Veterinarian Medical Association and the American
Association of Equine Practitioners recognize the method by which
horses are slaughtered in the United States as a humane method of
euthanasia of disposing of horses.
So the bill does not prohibit other means of deposition of horses. If
people still want to put down their horse by some other means, it does
not stop them from doing that. It will simply stop the proper
inspection of these horses, which, as the gentleman from Texas
correctly notes, will deprive us of a lot of useful information that
will be gathered by those veterinarians about diseases and so on that
will confront these horses if indeed they do not get properly inspected
and they have serious diseases.
Other organizations that oppose this: The American Farm Bureau
opposes this legislation. The American Meat Institute opposes this
legislation. The Equine Nutrition and Physiology Society opposes this
legislation. The Animal Welfare Council opposes this legislation. The
National Horse Show Commission opposes this legislation. Organizations
that represent literally millions of horse owners in this country and
elsewhere around the world oppose this legislation because of their
concern, not about whether somebody is eating horses or not but whether
or not these horses will be treated humanely if they are not allowed to
go through the process they go through today.
So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. It is not in the
best interest of America's horses, it is not in the best interest of
America's horse owners, and it is not in the best interest of the
fiscal concerns that we must have if we are confronted down the road
with the possibility of having to take care of these many, many horses.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me quickly respond to some of the information that
has been put out there.

[[Page H4249]]

First of all, on the cost end of it, CBO said already this is a cost-
neutral proposition. In fact, it is my contention that it will give the
USDA extra resources to do the job of protecting the American food
chain.
Secondly, we talked about the failure of a lack of a hearing. We
looked for a hearing for 2 years. That necessitated bringing this
legislation.
Finally, if we are simply going to get into a debate over which
organizations support it, there are vastly more organizations, some of
the most preeminent experts in the horse industry who support this
legislation, including Congress's top veterinarian, Senator Ensign, who
is introducing a counterpart bill in the Senate.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Spratt).
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, first question, what is the effect of this
amendment?
This amendment in simple terms will stop the slaughter or human
consumption of horses, the meat of which will be exported to foreign
countries. It does not stop, affect or any way impede euthanasia by
veterinarians. It stops the brutal slaughter at slaughterhouses.
Sometimes horses are jacked up by their hind legs and have their
throats slit. This is the kind of slaughter that this bill will
prohibit so that the meat can be exported to Europe and other places.
Secondly, who is affected? Slaughterhouses in two States. That is it.
Three different slaughterhouse locations in two States. That is it.
Those are the net effects because, you see, Americans do not eat horse
meat.
These horses are not slaughtered in this country, 65,000 last year,
for consumption here. They are slaughtered for consumption in Europe
and Asia, and 35,000 were not trucked to Mexico and Canada only to be
euthanized there. They were shipped there to be slaughtered. So this
affects foreign consumers of American horse meat. That is all. No
Americans are affected, and only three plants in two States are
actually affected.
Who is for it and who is against it? I will leave this 7-page
memorandum which shows individuals, organizations, horse raisers, horse
racers, horse farmers, horse lovers of all kinds who support it,
including a substantial number of veterinarians. Seven pages long, that
is how many people are in favor of it.
Next question: What do we know about the consequences of this? What
happens when you stop the slaughter of horses at, albeit, just three
plants? Well, we know from practical experience in five States,
including California, the largest State for the last 7 years, this law
has been in effect Statewide in California and four other States and in
California since 1998. What has been the effect? Have there been horses
that have been left for neglect, derelict horses? No, there have been
no effects. Have there been horses that have been too numerous to be
euthanized? No. Practically, in the five States that have implemented
this law, there has been no effect whatsoever.
Finally, what is the legislative history of this bill? The
legislative history is we filed a bill like this in the last Congress.
We filed it again in this Congress. In the last Congress, after we put
on an effort to win support for it, we collected 225 co-sponsors. We
never had a hearing. We were entitled to one. So we come here today
using a different parliamentary procedure.
But this bill has been thoroughly exposed, thoroughly supported,
thoroughly argued for and against; and today we are entitled to this
vote on the House floor. And if the 225 Members who have supported our
bill in the past come forward, we will see that the will of the House
is that this becomes the law of the land.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me
time, and I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words on this
issue.
As I listen to this debate and I am listening to the points that are
being made by the other side, and, by the way, I rise in opposition to
the Sweeney amendment, one of the questions that has not been answered
here is what is the distinction between a steer, a hog, and a horse?
Why would we elevate the horse to a level beyond that of another
animal? Does it have a certain intrinsic value that distinguishes it?
That is something that I would like to hear, but I think it is
important for the people who own horses to manage their horses.
Another question is, should horses be eaten? I have not really heard
the answer to that. I know they do that in other places of the world. I
have never eaten a horse. I had some zebra in Africa last year and,
actually, it was the best meat I had on the continent. I never felt the
desire to eat a horse, but they do that in other countries.
We have a horse herd that needs to be managed. Whatever that is,
whether it is a 1 percent, a 2 percent or a 10 percent of the herd that
is slaughtered, all of it does something that allows them to cull out
the herd. It saves those horses from disease and starvation. And if you
have seen those horses as I have in dry lot that were not taken care
of, you do not want to turn these horses over to the people who do not
have the means to take care of them.
But the U.S. horse herd should be managed. We should be humane with
our animals. We should treat them well and give them veterinarian
treatment, and those that do not fit into the plans need to be managed
and taken care of and euthanized.
Now there is also the address made that we are doing this for foreign
interests, that this is for the interests of foreign markets and
foreign palates. We have a balance of trade that is now a minus $617
billion a year. What is wrong with marketing American products that
help that, reduce the deficit in the balance of trade? And, by the way,
if it is the euros that come from France, that is okay with me. I think
that is a great way for us to start to repair the balance of trade.
Another thing we cannot do is set up a species in this country that
sets it up as a sacred species. American horses cannot be turned into
sacred cows by the Sweeney amendment.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) has 8\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) has 6 minutes
remaining.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me quickly answer my good friend, the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. King) by saying 2 things. When Ferdinand, the great
horse champion, was sold for slaughter, he was marketed as ``eating an
American champion.'' There is a distinction there.
Number two, I would ask how many zebras, how many cows do we know the
names of? We know the names of many horses, and the fact is horses are
not raised in this Nation for human consumption.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Whitfield).
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr.
Rahall) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) for bringing this
amendment to the floor.
I would point out that we hear a lot from the American Equine
Veterinarian Practitioners and the American Quarter Horse Association
about their great concern for these horses, and yet there are hundreds
of organizations in the country today who provide funding through their
foundation to provide retirement homes for unwanted horses. Yet I am
not aware that the American Equine Veterinarian Practitioners do that
through a foundation, nor the American Quarter Horse Association, nor
do they do it through a foundation; and they are the most prolific
breeders of any breed in the country.
I will also say we are talking about two foreign-owned companies
here, one owned by a French family, one owned by a Belgium family. They
are the only ones slaughtering horses in America.
In addition to that, the Attorney General of Texas, who is now a U.S.
Senator, wrote a legal opinion while he was Attorney General stating
that it was illegal to slaughter horses in Texas. And yet, despite
that, the slaughterhouse brought a lawsuit, and that case is now
pending in U.S. District Court.

[[Page H4250]]

The Mayor of Kaufman, Texas, where one of plants is located, has
written a letter to us urging us to try to shut these plants down
because of their consistent violation of environmental laws.
But one of the things that is most difficult about this process is
that, first of all, I think everyone would agree horses have not been
raised for slaughter. Unlike cows, pigs and chickens, they have not
been raised for slaughter.
When you take a cow, pig, chicken or whatever to an auction house you
know it is going to be slaughtered. But many people when they take a
horse to an auction are unaware because there is a lack of disclosure.
In fact, there is an effort made to conceal that self-described
``killer buyers'' are at the auction house and they take the horses to
slaughter.
Then the process of the captive penetrating bolt being administered
by low-skilled workers, low-paid workers who frequently have to do it
two or three times before the horse is stunned and then his throat is
slit, I would dare to say that is not humane. Now the leadership of the
American Equine Practitioners say that it is humane. But if you talk to
individual veterinarians, they would take controversy with that.
For every page of supporters opposing this legislation, we have pages
of entities and individuals and organizations that support this
legislation. And I might add a few of them that support it.
We have the owners of the last 12 Kentucky Derby winners supporting
it. We have the National Thoroughbred Racing Association supporting it.
We have the Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association supporting it.
We have the New York Racing Authority supporting it. We have Churchill
Downs supporting it. I could go on and on and on. But, most important,
we have an inconsistent policy in the U.S. Government today on this
issue. We prohibit sending horses out of America by sea for the purpose
of slaughter, and yet we allow them to be slaughtered in the United
States.
So it is an inconsistent policy. There is a lack of disclosure at the
auction house. And when California banned horse slaughter, the only
thing that they found was that, one, horse theft went down and horse
abuse and neglect did not go up.

{time} 1545

With that, I would urge the support of the Sweeney amendment.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield for as much time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), chairman of the
authorizing committee.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for the time.
I want to respond to a few of the remarks made by the gentleman from
Kentucky and the gentleman from New York.
First of all, he talked about an inconsistent policy because we do
not allow horses to be shipped overseas for slaughter purposes by boat.
We do nothing to stop that from being done with regard to transport to
Canada or Mexico. The fact of the matter is this amendment does not
stop it.
So when my colleagues talk about the humane treatment of horses, this
amendment is going to result in more inhumane treatment of horses if
that is their guide, because they are going to be shipped greater
distances to Canada and Mexico because they cannot be sent to slaughter
facilities in the U.S.
Second, the gentleman from New York makes reference to the great
racehorse Ferdinand, like this amendment would have stopped Ferdinand
from having gone to slaughter. It absolutely would not have. I did not
like seeing Ferdinand go to slaughter, but Ferdinand was sold to a
Japanese owner and exported not for slaughter purposes but for breeding
purposes; and later on in Japan, he was slaughtered. This amendment
will do absolutely nothing to stop that same situation from happening
to any other racehorse in the world.
Thirdly, the gentleman makes references to just three slaughter
facilities. That is not true either. There are other slaughter
facilities for horses. For example, there is a slaughterhouse in
Nebraska which solely slaughters horses for zoos and sanctuaries for
big cats which would be essentially shut down by this amendment because
horses provide the proper type of high protein diet for those animals,
when they are not out racing across the savannahs, because beef simply
is not good for cats, these large cats.
The gentleman from New York says it is budget neutral, but the fact
of the matter is all he is talking about there is budget neutral in
terms of this particular amendment not costing any money; but
consequences of the amendment will cost a lot of money because this
amendment does absolutely nothing to stop the many practices that occur
in this country that create unwanted horses, everything from nurse
mares in the thoroughbred racing industry, to Premarin mares to produce
the drug Premarin, to the foals of those mares, to the fact that for
every Smarty Jones that is created, there are hundreds and hundreds of
unwanted racehorses who do not make the grade and other horses that are
unsuitable for riding and other pleasure purposes or showing. Those
horses, as well, will fall into that category of unwanted horses.
Nor does the amendment do anything to take care of all those unwanted
horses as they start to accumulate in our society. We have already
talked about the massive estimated costs that will take place as a
result of that.
Finally, the gentleman from Kentucky talks about the facilities that
exist that would take care of horses, and we have some of those
facilities in the country today. This amendment does not establish
standards of care that horse rescue facilities must meet.
The humane society of the United States, which supports the
amendment, admits that equine shelters are less well-established than
cat and dog shelters. Citing extreme costs and staff time needed to
shelter horses, the humane society warned of needing to be aware of
distinctions between sheltering horses and sheltering other companion
animals. Current horse-rescue facilities are overwhelmed with the
amount of horses they already care for without this amendment being in
effect and are in desperate search of additional funding.
The American Association of Equine Practitioners estimated that in
the first year alone of a slaughter ban 2,700 additional equine
facilities would be needed to keep up with unwanted horses displaced by
the ban, compounding the problem by adding additional facilities that
will also be searching for additional funding.
This is a bad, bad idea. I know there is a lot of emotion that says
this is a great thing to do. It is not and it is not in the best
interests of the horses of this country to pass this amendment. I urge
my colleagues to oppose it.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just simply say, before I recognize, that the gentleman raises some
interesting points; and I would hope that the authorizing committee
could go to hearings in the near future.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friends, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney); the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt); and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).
What has become of us as a country, selling these horses off for
horse meat to be eaten on the other side of our oceans?
The wild horse is an icon of American history. The gentleman from
Iowa asked what is the difference between a horse and a steer and a
hog? The horse is an icon along with the bald eagle. What is the
difference between a bald eagle and a pigeon or a turkey? And if you do
not know the difference, we cannot explain it to you.
Shakespeare once said that ``Horses are as full of spirit as the
month of May and as gorgeous as the sun in midsummer''. Does everything
have to be converted to the bottom line? There are so many alternatives
to slaughtering these beautiful creatures that are on public lands. We
used to have 1 million at the turn of the century. We are down to
35,000 wild horses on public lands. That is sad and wrong.
We have responsibility over these beautiful creatures. They ought not
be cut up in such an inhumane way, and shipped overseas for people who
want

[[Page H4251]]

to eat horse meat. That is not what we are about as a country. There
are so many other alternatives.
We can use animal contraception methods. We could reopen over 100
herd management areas that the Bureau of Land Management has closed. We
could start centers such as the one I saw this weekend, 61 horses
brought from the wild West for adoption. They came from Nevada and
Wyoming and California, beautiful creatures. People in the east coast
are adopting them.
There are so many things we could be doing rather than selling these
beautiful creatures for horse meat. We are not just about dollars and
cents. We are about the things that made our country great. The wild
horse is one of those things. It inspires poetry; and if my colleagues
do not understand that, I guess we can't very well communicate why this
is so important to us. But I trust the majority of this Congress knows
what we are talking about.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Before I recognize my final speaker to close, Mr. Chairman, let me
just point out if it is about the bottom line, it is about making sure
USDA inspectors inspect the American food chain and not foreign food
chains.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from
West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for
yielding me time, and I appreciate his leadership, as well as the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) and the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
I want to remind my colleagues that this particular amendment, which
is a funding limitation, however, is still very similar to an amendment
that the House voted on shortly before we broke before the Memorial Day
district work period. That particular amendment passed in an
overwhelming fashion and in a bipartisan fashion. So this is truly
bipartisan when it comes to recognizing how valuable the horse is to
this country and what a symbol it is of our freedom and how important
it is to recognize this truly American icon.
When Americans think of the horse, I do not believe they think of it
in terms of foreign cuisine on the tables of countries around the
European area.
This amendment has invoked a lot of emotion and misinformation. The
opposition has said that this will increase the abuse of horses and
horses running wild out West. Such statements are not true.
Here are the facts. Each year some 65,000 horses are slaughtered in
this country for human consumption in Europe and Asia where they are
sold in restaurants as a delicacy. Another 30,000 are trucked to Canada
and Mexico for slaughter. This amendment will end that slaughter of
American horses for human consumption overseas.
Slaughter is not the same as humane euthanasia administered by a
veterinarian in a very controlled environment. Euthanasia of horses is
administered by legal injection, whereas slaughtered is administered by
unskilled, untrained workers using the captive bolt. Many times this is
administered improperly, causing unnecessary pain and suffering before
death.
Passage of this amendment will not cause an overpopulation of horses.
Each year 690,000 horses die in the U.S. many of which are euthanized
by a licensed veterinarian. Slaughtered horses represent only 1 percent
of horses that die each year. This would not result in an
overpopulation of horses as some suggest.
There are alternatives available. Americans do not profit from
slaughtering horses. This is an export-driven market. Foreigners eat
our horses and foreign companies make money, and we should stop looking
at it in that perspective and start looking at it in the American
perspective.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney)
will be postponed.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
King of Iowa) having assumed the chair, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, 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.
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, had come to no
resolution thereon.

____________________