[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 140 (Friday, October 28, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H9381-H9394]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[[Page H9381]]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2744, AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD
AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 520, I call up
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2744) making appropriations for
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for
other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 520, the
conference report is considered read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
October 26, 2005, at page H9204.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring before the House today the
conference report on H.R. 2744, which is the Agriculture appropriations
bill, which not only covers agriculture, but the Food and Drug
Administration and related agencies for fiscal year 2006.
Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the good work of the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), my ranking member and good friend, who
has contributed greatly to this process. It has been a real pleasure
working with her and all the members of the subcommittee in getting to
this point today.
I believe we have produced a good, bipartisan conference agreement
that does a lot to advance important nutrition, research and rural
development programs and still meet our conference allocations on
discretionary spending and mandatory spending. My goal this year has
been to produce a bipartisan bill, and I believe we have done a good
job in reaching that goal.
This conference agreement does have significant increases over fiscal
year 2005 for programs that have always enjoyed strong bipartisan
support, and they include the following: Agricultural Research Service,
$33 million; Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension
Service, $33 million; Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, $7
million; Food Safety and Inspection Service, $21 million; Farm Service
Agency, $48 million; Natural Resources Conservation Service, $12
million; Rural Economic and Community Development Programs, $115
million; Domestic Food Programs, $6.5 billion; and the FDA, $40
million.
We have delayed implementation of the country-of-origin labeling for
meat, produce and peanuts until 2008. The House voted for delay on COOL
while this bill was considered on the floor. There are serious concerns
about how this law would be implemented, and this delay gives the
Department and the committee of jurisdiction the time to make this
policy work.
Mr. Speaker, we refer to this bill as the agriculture bill, but it
does far more than assist just basic agriculture. It also supports
rural and economic development, human nutrition, agricultural exports,
land conservation, as well as food, drug and medical safety. This is a
bill that will deliver benefits to every one of our constituents every
day, no matter what kind of district you represent.
I would say to all Members that they can support this conference
agreement and tell all of their constituents that they voted to improve
their lives while maintaining fiscal responsibility.
The conference agreement is a bipartisan product with a lot of hard
work and input from both sides of the aisle. I would like to thank the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey), who serve as the distinguished chairman and ranking member
of the full Committee on Appropriations. They have been very supportive
in moving not only this bill, but other appropriations bills through
the Congress as quickly as possible.
I have tried our best to put together a good, solid bill that works
for all of America. Much of it is compromise, to be sure, but I believe
it is a good compromise and good policy.
In closing, I would also like to thank the subcommittee staff for all
of their hard work. None of this could get done without the strong,
good commitment, the hard work that this staff puts in day in and day
out, sometimes well into the night and covering many weekends: Martin
Delgado, the subcommittee clerk; Maureen Holohan, Leslie Barrack, and
Jamie Swafford of the majority staff; and Martha Foley on the minority
staff. In addition, I want to thank our detailee Tom O'Brien, and a
great Texas Aggie, Walt Smith, from my personal staff.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge all of my colleagues to support this
conference agreement.
Mr. Speaker, I include at this point in the Record tabular material
related to this bill.
[[Page H9382]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28OC05.001
[[Page H9383]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28OC05.002
[[Page H9384]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28OC05.003
[[Page H9385]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28OC05.004
[[Page H9386]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28OC05.005
[[Page H9387]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28OC05.006
[[Page H9388]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28OC05.007
[[Page H9389]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28OC05.008
[[Page H9390]]
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1045
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his statement. I am
pleased to join with him today as we complete the work on this year's
Agriculture appropriations bill, the first in my capacity as ranking
member of the agriculture appropriations subcommittee.
It has been a pleasure to work with Chairman Bonilla and his staff to
put together this bill, as well as with Chairman Lewis and Ranking
Member Obey in an effort to get here today.
I want to say thank you to the subcommittee staffs for their hard
work. It truly is yeoman's work. I know that the staffs met for several
weeks to iron out the differences between the House and Senate bills.
We certainly appreciate all of their hard work.
This has been a privilege. When I chose to sit on this subcommittee 9
years ago, I did so because I have always believed that the issues
overseen by this subcommittee speak to the core responsibilities of the
Federal Government. This is the only subcommittee where farm policy,
rural development, conservation, nutrition programs, food safety, drug
regulation and public health all come together.
As such, it is my belief that the bill that we discuss today is more
than a list of programs and funding levels. It is a statement of
values, principles and priorities. So when we discuss this bill, I
believe we think of it in those terms. We should remember that farm
programs, international trade promotion and advocacy that help our
farmers across the country sell our products may have profound
implications on our Nation's overall economy and quality of life. The
research programs at USDA are critical to our efforts to protect our
agriculture products, our national herd and our public health.
Indeed, there are many aspects of the bill that I am very proud of,
particularly in the area of rural development. Whether it is affordable
housing, clean drinking water or sewage systems, access to remote
educational and medical resources, we know that rural America faces
serious economic development challenges. And I believe the President's
budget failed to address those challenges, decimating many rural
development programs.
And despite our hard work, the overall figure remains below the level
of last year's House bill, well below the 2004 level, and I am afraid
that the funding shortfall in this bill will lead to long-term problems
with rural infrastructure.
But together we made real headway in reversing those cuts. Indeed, I
am proud of the work we were able to accomplish with respect to
affordable housing in rural America. We were able to keep the House
level on section 502 single family direct loans, which help low- and
very low-income households obtain homeownership; and 515 loans for
multifamily housing projects to provide living units for people with
low and moderate incomes in rural areas. The agreement provides $141
million and $10 million over the respective Senate levels.
We also agreed to a new $9 million demonstration program under
section 515 to preserve affordable rural multifamily housing. We
created a new $16 million rental housing voucher program to protect
tenants residing in section 515 multifamily housing from being
threatened by their landlords, as well as preserving a nearly $3
million low-income multifamily housing preservation revolving fund in
the Senate bill.
We made sure to secure language regarding Farm Service Agency office
closings. FSA provides that critical link between the farmer and the
Federal Government's critical services, delivering assistance to
specialty crop producers, disbursal of payments for programs such as
the peanut buyout, and the handling of disaster assistance payments.
Our language ensures that if FSA closes any field offices, it would
require public hearings in the affected areas so that the voices of the
community will be heard by USDA before any action is taken, and giving
Congress 120 days advance notice.
Of course, this bill's impact on the public health is significant as
well, from FDA's responsibilities to feeding programs, which urban
areas like my hometown of New Haven rely on for women, infants and
children, for schools, and for seniors and the disabled living on the
edge of poverty. Ensuring that these programs are both funded and
operated efficiently is, in my opinion, among the very serious
obligations of government, obligations we are charged in the
subcommittee with overseeing.
I am pleased that we agreed to the funding levels in the House and
Senate bills for the Women, Infants and Children Program in the
conference agreement. We also protected the program's reserve fund in
the unlikely case the current estimates in funding prove too low.
I was particularly pleased we were able to secure strong report
language directing the Secretary of USDA to tell all agencies to take
all necessary steps to keep avian flu out of the U.S., providing a
report to us by March of next year on the progress of those efforts. We
need to do whatever it takes to aggressively tackle this urgent public
health matter, including engaging USDA in that effort. We also added
strong report language calling on FDA to develop a response plan on
human-to-human transmission of avian influenza.
I thank the chairman for working with me to double the annual funding
for review of direct-to-consumer ads by FDA, as well as another $5
million for the highest-priority drug safety needs 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 only $884,000. 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.
Mr. Speaker, I was pleased by many aspects of this bill. I was
particularly pleased that after several years we had an opportunity to
participate in a conference meeting to resolve several outstanding
issues, and to do so in a public capacity. But I was disappointed that
same openness and transparency did not carry all the way through to the
resolution of all outstanding issues.
And there is much to be done, from food stamps and drug reimportation
to reform at FDA and meat labeling. As the agency entrusted with
ensuring the safety of our food and drug supply and to protect the
public health, we all understand how important it is that we maintain
FDA's integrity. But the past year has been particularly difficult,
from the flu vaccine shortages caused by inept manufacturing oversight
to delayed withdrawal of medicines such as Vioxx that have resulted in
thousands of unreported deaths to ongoing safety concerns regarding
medical devices.
Restoring integrity to FDA starts with providing better guidelines in
the makeup of its advisory committees. What is particularly troubling
is the granting of waivers by FDA to scientists and other experts who
have potential conflicts of interest. Permitting these experts to serve
and vote regardless of conflict is wrong. This must stop. FDA ought to
rely on the opinions of unconflicted, fully qualified professional
advisers so that the agency can receive the best unbiased advice
possible.
The House adopted an amendment 218-210 that would have stopped the
granting of such waivers for 1 year for voting members of FDA advisory
committees. I believe this was the right approach. Surely we have
enough doctors and scientists in this country that we can find unbiased
solutions. The Senate adopted language that fails to address the issue
by allowing the current practice at FDA to continue. In an effort to
break the deadlock on the issue, I offered a compromise amendment at
the conference, an amendment that the chairman graciously supported,
but the Senate would not accept.
I am disappointed with the language that the majority put into the
conference agreement. I think it will both deter people from serving on
advisory committees, while failing to stop the FDA from granting
conflict of interest waivers to scientists, allowing them to continue
on these advisory committees. My hope is in the coming year we can
resolve the problem.
Another serious shortcoming in the bill is in the area of country of
origin
[[Page H9391]]
labeling, giving people the information they need to make an informed
choice to protect the safety of their families. Thirty-five other
countries we trade with already have a country of origin food labeling
system in place, this at a time when food imports are increasing, avian
flu poses a serious risk, but the number of inspections of imported
meat are decreasing.
And given the fact that we continue to have major recalls of meat
products, this effort is also about being able to trace back
contaminated product in the event of a recall. Knowing the source of an
outbreak is critical to the process so we can quickly take action to
prevent people from getting sick.
Unfortunately, this conference report pushes back any action to
implement a labeling system until September 2008. It expands the
moratorium to include fruits and vegetables, something that was not in
the House bill. I regret to say this is a serious failing, a decision
on which we had no input. I hope the Congress will revisit this soon.
Perhaps the biggest disappointment in this bill, one so antithetical
to the subcommittee's mission that I believe it undermines much of the
good work we have done in the past year, is our failure to protect the
integrity of the food stamp program, one of the most effective, well-
run Federal programs we have.
Twenty-five million citizens receive food stamp benefits, children,
seniors, low-income families, many displaced by the recent hurricanes.
Despite these immense responsibilities, this bill allows a plan to
delegate certification and enrollment of recipients for food stamps to
a private firm with no accountability or quality assurances.
But the Texas Food Stamp Privatization Plan would lay off at least
1,200 State workers, closing more than a quarter of State-run
eligibility offices around the State, replacing staff at low hourly
rates. Major responsibilities would fall to community organizations,
which have admitted they do not have the capacity to handle. Clients
would be forced to travel long distances or rely on the Internet for
services, with serious implications for seniors, low-income families
and those with disabilities.
In addition, the plan appears to flout the law, conflicting with
Federal statutes governing the food stamp program which require States
to obtain a waiver from USDA.
What makes this so unfortunate is that it is so unnecessary. The food
stamp program right now is operating with the lowest error rate it has
ever had. Texas itself has a very well-operated program. This is not
simply about an isolated issue in Texas. Taxpayers all over the country
pay half the cost of running the food stamp program. We have an
obligation to ensure that the program is run effectively, efficiently
and in compliance with the law. Quite simply, the conference report
fails to fulfill that obligation, one of our most serious
responsibilities for this subcommittee.
Just let me mention one or two areas of concern that I have. The
House and Senate adopted identical language prohibiting the use of
Federal funds for the inspection of horses for slaughter for human
food. It was a wide margin on roll calls in both Houses. Still there
were concerns that the provision would be dropped, and in the final
agreement between House and Senate, I was pleased to see the
prohibition maintained, even if it was delayed for 120 days.
I am confused by the notion as the bill was ready to be filed that
there was included a completely new authorizing legislation on horse
slaughter, making it parliamentarily impossible to offer this amendment
ever again on the House floor. It seems to me that flies in the face of
our democratic process.
Another provision that was not either in the House or Senate bill or
discussed in conference which was inserted without debate before the
conference report was filed has to do with a series of changes to the
Organic Foods Production Act of 1990. Members may be dismayed to know
that section 796 of the bill contains language permanently amending the
Immigration and Nationality Act. It was adopted by the Senate as part
of the bill. I do not know why the sponsor had to have it enacted now
without careful consideration and hearing, and why it was included in
the agriculture appropriations bill.
As I pointed out, I think we made tremendous progress, and we are
going to move forward and adopt this piece of legislation. Despite my
concerns, it has been a pleasure working with the chairman on this
effort on this important bill. I believe we do have much to be proud
of. We can feel a sense of accomplishment about the finished product.
My hope is we can address the issues where there still appear to be
differences and that we can move forward.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Bonilla for
yielding. He is most gracious to yield to someone who will speak
against the conference report and will reluctantly vote against the
conference report. It is not every committee chairman that would yield
to anyone that would do that, particularly when you are talking about
an appropriation bill.
I rise today in opposition reluctantly to this, but I do so primarily
because of an issue of process that I have become more and more
concerned about in my 11 years in the U.S. Congress.
This conference report was filed last night. The Rules Committee met
quickly after that, developing the rule for consideration of the
conference report. The conference report violated rule XXII of the
House and violated rule XXVIII of the Senate in that section 798 was
included in this conference report which was not a part of the House
bill, was not a part of the Senate bill, and specifically changes
substantive law.
Yet as is usually the case, the Rules Committee issues a rule waiving
all points of order, which actually does raise a question of why does
the House need rules, why does the Senate need rules, if we are always
waiving those rules and Members never have an opportunity to bring an
issue up.
Mr. Speaker, 798 is not about horse slaughter, and we have heard a
lot about horse slaughter. I will admit I am one of those in the House
that is making an effort to do what we can to stop the slaughter of
horses for human consumption in Europe. There are only two companies
left in the U.S. that are still doing this. One is owned by a French
company, and one is owned by a company in Belgium. But that is not the
issue here today.
Section 798 changed section 619 of title 21 of the Federal Meat
Inspection Act.
{time} 1100
And the substantive change adopted in the conference report without
the knowledge of many people in the conference, we have had four
different lawyers look at this language, and we have come up with four
different answers. And even the attorney for the United States
Department of Agriculture sent us an explanation, and they said, We
have reviewed section 798 and its intent is not clear. We have had some
private lawyers look at it, and they have come up with one conclusion.
So all four lawyers came up with different conclusions, but one thing
that they all stated quite specifically was that it is a very vague
statute. It is a very vague section. So what we are doing here, it is a
section that treats equines, mules, and horses differently than other
species of animals, and it is being changed significantly. And all of
the attorneys have agreed that it is vague.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, as I stated, does not know its
intents; so basically what we are doing is we are including this
provision which is legislating on our appropriation bill and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture is going to write the regulations, and we are
not going to have any control of over it, in my view.
So I come today to simply express my opposition of this process that
I find becoming more prevalent. Another example of this was in the
omnibus bill last year in which 70 years of policy on protecting wild
mustangs was changed without anyone's knowledge. And here today we do
not have any agreement on what this language does, and we are going to
be voting upon it.
But I would want to, in conclusion, state that I reluctantly am going
to
[[Page H9392]]
vote against the conference report, but I do want to thank Chairman
Lewis and Chairman Bonilla for allowing me to speak. I appreciate that
very much.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentlewoman from Connecticut
(Ms. DeLauro), our ranking member, has stated many of the concerns
which Members of Congress have with this bill. I would like to state
mine, and indicate why I am going to vote against the agriculture
appropriations conference report.
Section 797 undermines the organic food industry by changing the
definition of organic food without a congressional hearing, without
agreement by the National Organic Standards Board, and without consumer
consent.
All across America when people go shopping, there are millions of
Americans who are looking for the organic label. Why? Because it is
considered to be a label that is indicative of greater integrity in
food, food which is not likely to be poisoned with pesticides, food
which is carefully grown by organic farmers, food which is healthier.
People trust that organic label.
But Americans should know that this bill has changed the organic food
law and that big food companies have prodded Congress to change the
organic food law and that this would allow the use of several synthetic
ingredients in organic products and potentially weaken the organic
dairy standards.
More specifically, the amendments which the industry has helped to
put in this bill would leave unresolved whether young dairy cows could
be treated with antibiotics and converted to organic within 12 months,
which would create a serious new loophole in which organic ingredients
could be substituted with nonorganic ingredients, without any consumer
notice, based on emergency decrees. Now, consumer confidence in the
organic label is absolutely essential to ensure a strong organic
market.
I have had the opportunity to meet with organic farmers all across
America, and they take great pride in their product and in their
produce. And what this bill does is it undermines organic standards. It
could permanently allow synthetic processing aids and food contact
substances including over 500 food contact substances to be used in
organic foods without any type of public review for their safety and
compatibility with organic production and processing.
Let me tell the Members what this is reminiscent of. In 1992, the
Food and Drug Administration ruled that genetically modified organisms
were the functional equivalent of conventional foods. They had no
scientific basis to make that decision, but they went ahead and set the
stage for the very food that we eat to be altered genetically without
any science behind it. Now, if we are what we eat, we should be careful
about how our food is made so we know what we are going to become. And
we have taken no concern about that in this Congress because today GMOs
are found in hundreds of millions of acres of food in this country, and
now we are weakening organic standards with this legislation.
It is time for Congress to take a stand for pure food. It is time for
Congress to take a stand for integrity in food. It is time for us to
vote against this bill which undermines organic standards.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman very much for yielding
me this time.
I just want to take a minute to thank the chairman for doing such an
unbelievably great job through a very difficult year with the
allocations; and the ranking member, who has worked so hard on this
bill and is a very good friend; and certainly and most importantly, the
staff who have done just a fabulous job of putting together this most
difficult bill.
Obviously, there are a lot of things we need to do in agriculture
with the FDA throughout this entire bill.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LATHAM. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I would love to associate
myself with his remarks.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, one very important
priority is the completion of the animal health facility at Ames, Iowa,
and this $58.8 million will complete that $462 million project. And it
is so important for human health, animal health, food safety.
I just want to thank the committee chairman and the ranking member
for their support.
I rise in support of this conference report, and encourage the
members of the House to do the same, as this is a well-balanced
measure. In a climate of tight allocations, the chairman has done an
outstanding job of ensuring that sufficient resources are available for
the broad range of programs that are funded under this bill.
Congresswoman DeLauro has proved to be an excellent ranking member.
And, I want to commend the committee staffs on both sides; once again,
they have done a fine job under difficult circumstances.
Like many Members from rural America, I wish we could have applied
higher funding levels in this bill. However, given our budget
constraints, I am generally pleased with the funding levels provided.
This year, the other body finally saw the light and agreed to final
funding for the National Animal Disease Center Modernization Project.
This funding will give the Department of Agriculture a world-class
facility, with a broad range of animal disease research capabilities.
For renewable energy--another important sector to our part of the
country and to the agriculture economy--the bill provides 23 million
dollars.
This program provides small grants that help farmers and small
businesses make energy efficiency improvements--ultimately helping
farmers hurt by high fuel prices.
The measure funds important agriculture research, for both crops and
livestock. Like many of my colleagues we must renew our commitment to
agriculture research which holds great promise for the future of
American agriculture.
Over the years, we have made great strides through research, in areas
such as disease prevention, food safety, crop yields and animal health.
For example, there is again research funding for soybean rust
including new treatments for emerging soybean diseases that threaten
the economies of our rural communities.
Another important element of the bill is funding under the Hatch Act.
These funds sustain critical research at our land grant universities.
Without Hatch Act funding we would severely limit the ongoing progress
being made by some our Nation's most talented scientists and educators.
In summary I have noted just a few of the important parts of this FY
06 Agriculture Appropriations Conference Report.
This was a difficult process but we have a good bill that protects
our food supply, safeguards the environment and ensures our country
continues to benefit from the safest and most reliable pharmaceutical
and medical devices in the world.
Again, I urge the members to support this conference report.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, let me just say once again what a pleasure
it has been to work with the chairman and his staff, in particular,
Maureen Holohan, Leslie Barrack, Jennifer Miller, and Martin Delgado. I
appreciate all of their efforts and good work.
As I say to my staff, I was in a staff position before and all of
this does not happen by some alchemy. It happens because good people do
a lot of good work. I am most appreciative of the assistance from Rob
Nabors and Martha Foley and, from my own staff, Ashley Turton and
Leticia Mederos.
I will support the conference report.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments.
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, today, I voted against the
conference report on H.R. 2744, the Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
for Fiscal Year 2006, primarily because it did not include an extension
of the Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) program. I have fought very
hard for the MILC extension and was disappointed that it could not be
included. In addition, the conference report is $199 million over its
budget allocation. While I was given assurances that future funding
will be cut to offset this discrepancy, this appropriations bill should
not have been brought to the floor over its allocation. I will be
watching very closely to ensure this funding is offset in future bills.
That said, I support many of the provisions in this conference
report. In particular, I was pleased to help secure $2.25 million for
the Wisconsin and Minnesota Health Care Cooperative Purchasing Alliance
Demonstrations
[[Page H9393]]
Projects. This funding will provide health care coverage to small
businesses and family farms in rural areas across the State. The bill
also contains $1.75 million I requested for the State of Wisconsin to
combat Chronic Wasting Disease. Despite the many positive aspects of
this legislation, on balance--because of the negative factors I
mentioned--I believe it was not worthy of my support.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I have a number of problems with the Fiscal
Year 2006 Agriculture Appropriations conference report as it stands
now. Its damage to provisions on country-of-origin labeling and organic
standards are two alarming reasons to vote against the bill.
But Mr. Speaker, I am most disappointed with this bill's final
language regarding conflicts of interest on FDA Advisory Boards.
As you may recall, earlier this year members from both sides of the
aisle supported my amendment to shut down bad behavior at the Food and
Drug Administration on this issue.
In fact, 217 members of this chamber agreed with me that when the FDA
allows scientists with financial conflicts of interest to serve on
advisory boards that judge the safety, effectiveness, and viability of
various medical treatments, the public health is jeopardized at the
expense of inappropriate and personal interests.
These appointments flat-out undermine the objectivity of committee
advice and bias recommendations.
And yet, the final language that we are considering today is more
like a present to the agency for its bad behavior, instead of the
treatment it truly deserves.
This language enables the FDA to keep on allowing conflicted
panelists to vote on matters that they have no business judging. While
this bill does include new reporting requirements that are intended to
help watchdogs keep an eye on how frequently the FDA uses these
waivers, I am concerned that the language contains considerable
loopholes that will enable the agency to continue to evade its
responsibility of protecting the American public in this regard.
In fact, the bill as it stands now is particularly damaging because
it would allow the FDA to give the appearance of responsibility while
simultaneously continuing dangerous and corrupted practices.
I said it last summer and I'll say it again: 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 those
companies, then you are living in a fantasy world.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, while I supported the Agriculture
Appropriations bill when it was originally considered on the House
floor, I was disappointed in the conference committee's failure to
maintain some essential programs and I voted against the conference
report.
The agreement further delays mandatory country-of-origin labeling for
meat or meat products. Congress recognized the importance of this
program in ensuring food safety when it passed the 2002 Farm Bill and
the need is even more apparent now. It is perplexing why, in a time of
mad cow outbreaks and the threat of bioterrorism, we would cut funding
for this important program.
I was also disappointed to see a change to the organic standard, that
was not performed in a transparent manner. I am hopeful that in the
future Congress can work together more productively to pass an
agriculture bill that reflects the values of Americans and properly
funds the programs that are important to them.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I voted for the 2006 Agriculture
Appropriations Conference Committee because it funds programs important
to Maine and the Nation. However, I oppose Sec. 797 because it amends
the definition of organic food without a Congressional hearing or
agreement by the National Organic Standards Board.
On January 26, 2005, the First Circuit Court of Appeals issued a
ruling in Harvey v. Veneman, a lawsuit brought by Arthur Harvey, an
organic blueberry farmer from Maine with operations in Hartford and
Buckfield, against the Secretary of Agriculture. Harvey claimed that
several provisions of the USDA's National Organic Regulations were in
conflict with the Organic Foods Production Act. The U.S. District Court
for the District of Maine issued its Consent Final Judgment and Order
on June 9, 2005. The court ruled in Harvey's favor on three counts.
Specifically, the court found that existing regulations allowing the
use of synthetic substances in the handling and processing of products
labeled with the USDA ``Organic'' label and seal are contrary to the
intent and language of the OFPA. This final judgment requires USDA to
develop new rules within one year. It also allows producers, handlers,
and processors to operate and sell products under the old rules until
June 2007.
Regulatory changes are a viable means to resolve the inconsistencies
between the law (OFPA) and the National Organic Program regulations.
The organic farming community opposes the broadening of the definition
of organic to include synthetic ingredients. Changes in this area
should have been made in an open manner under regular order and not
inserted as a rider to the Agricultural Appropriations bill.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this conference
report for H.R. 2744, the ``Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, Appropriations Act of 2006.''
While the amounts in the bill are not adequate to fully meet the
needs of rural Colorado--and I'm disappointed that there isn't more--
the fact is that the Federal Government is being forced to do more with
less in a time of record budget deficits.
The conference report does include some important improvements over
the House passed bill. This is particularly true as regards funding for
conservation programs and rural development.
The bill also provides support for research programs that are
important to Colorado State University, including work on infectious
disease and ultraviolet radiation monitoring.
However, I am particularly disappointed with the conference
committee's decision to continue to delay for another two years
implementation of a mandatory country of origin labeling (COOL) for
products such as meat and produce. The shortsightedness of the
conference committee denies Colorado ranchers and farmers a wonderful
resource to market their products and provide consumers a clear choice
in the products they purchase.
I also am disappointed by the lack of consultation, consensus and
public discourse that marked the process of developing the legislative
changes the conference report makes to the National Organics Program.
Such legislative changes should be done in the most transparent manner
possible and I am disappointed this was not the case.
As this issue will certainly be revisited, I am hopeful the
consumers, producers, manufacturers and supporters of organic
agriculture can work together to advance this important part of
agriculture in Colorado and around the country.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of the conference
report on H.R. 2744, the Agriculture Appropriations Act for FY 2006
because of the Conferee's decision to further delay mandatory country-
of-origin labeling until September 30, 2008.
Country-of-origin labeling allows the consumer to make informed
decisions about what to buy and allows the consumer to support specific
farmers or producers at their discretion. Quite simply, American
consumers should, and need to have the right to know where their food
comes from. Imported meat is currently sold under the guise of a U.S.
product and there is no way for consumers to differentiate the origin
of their meat. This policy is an unfair and unnecessary risk to the
American consumer.
Congress passed mandatory country-of-origin labeling in the 2002 Farm
Bill to be implemented on September 30, 2004. This bill will now
further delay labeling four years from when it was originally scheduled
to take effect. America wanted this provision in the last Farm Bill and
Congress has again delayed its implementation.
Unfortunately over 40 of our trading partners have country-of-origin
labeling programs already in place, and despite all of our resources
and technology, the U.S. has not been able to determine a method of
implementation that provides our consumer with the same information.
Without this program in place, we are putting at risk two of our three
largest beef export markets, Japan and Korea.
For these reasons I cannot vote for this conference report today, and
it is my hope that Congress will finally take seriously what is best
for this country and the consumer.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). Without objection, the
previous question is ordered on the conference report.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on adoption of
the conference report on H.R. 2744 will be followed by a 5-minute vote
on adoption of H. Res. 523.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 318,
nays 63, not voting 52, as follows:
[Roll No. 555]
YEAS--318
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Berkley
Berry
[[Page H9394]]
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Deal (GA)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
English (PA)
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Herger
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Olver
Osborne
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pearce
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sessions
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--63
Andrews
Barrett (SC)
Bass
Bean
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bono
Bradley (NH)
Capuano
Chocola
Conyers
Cooper
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
Duncan
Engel
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Green (WI)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herseth
Honda
Hostettler
Inslee
Israel
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Kirk
Kucinich
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Marchant
McCollum (MN)
Nadler
Otter
Owens
Paul
Payne
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Price (GA)
Ramstad
Rehberg
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Schakowsky
Shays
Simmons
Stearns
Sweeney
Tancredo
Wexler
Whitfield
NOT VOTING--52
Baca
Baker
Becerra
Berman
Blunt
Boehlert
Boswell
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Calvert
Clyburn
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Drake
Eshoo
Foley
Ford
Gallegly
Gutierrez
Harris
Jefferson
Jones (NC)
Kind
Kingston
LaTourette
Linder
Lynch
McDermott
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Miller, Gary
Napolitano
Ney
Nunes
Obey
Ortiz
Pelosi
Reyes
Roybal-Allard
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Slaughter
Smith (TX)
Stark
Tauscher
Tiahrt
Towns
Velazquez
Westmoreland
Wu
{time} 1134
Messrs. PAYNE, OTTER, and BARRETT of South Carolina, and Ms. MCCOLLUM
of Minnesota, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, and Ms. LEE changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. SULLIVAN, GOODLATTE, JOHNSON of Illinois, HERGER, Ms.
KILPATRICK of Michigan, and Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California changed their
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________