[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13577-13614]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 538 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 4461.

                              {time}  1602


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 4461) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies 
programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Nussle in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole House rose on Thursday, 
June 29, 2000, the bill was open for amendment from page 57, line 12, 
to page 58, line 8.
  Are there further amendments to that portion of the bill?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a series of discussions with the 
distinguished gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen).
  Mr. Chairman, as we know, the Senate bill provides direct payments to 
dairy farmers estimated at $443 million to offset the record low prices 
we have seen for much of the past year.
  I would simply ask the chairman if he would be willing to work with 
me to ensure that direct payments for dairy farmers are included in the 
bill when it emerges from conference.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to work with the 
gentleman from Wisconsin. I find that we agree more often than not on 
the specifics of dairy policy, and would point to the last 2 years of 
economic assistance payments we have jointly inserted into the 
agriculture appropriations conference report as proof.
  Accordingly, I will be pleased to carry out our tradition of working 
together on dairy producer assistance, when and if we ever get to 
conference.

[[Page 13578]]


  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Let me turn to another subject, that of ultrafiltered milk. It seems 
there is always some new issue popping up in the dairy area. There are 
growing fears about the damaging impact on domestic dairy producers 
from imports of dry ultrafiltered or UF milk.
  Ultrafiltration is an important technology widely used in cheese 
plants for about 15 years to remove water, lactose, and minerals and 
allow manufacturers to manipulate the ingredients in cheese to arrive 
at the desired finished product.
  The use of liquid UF milk from another location has been approved by 
FDA on a case-by-case basis, but there is another problem. The problem 
is the threat of unlimited imports of dry UF milk from places like New 
Zealand following a petition to FDA earlier this year by the National 
Cheese Institute to change the standards of identity for cheese.
  I understand that there are no quotas or tariffs on this product, 
which is currently used in bakery mixes, ice cream, and other products 
that do not have the strict standards of identity that cheese has. 
There have also been newspaper reports suggesting that dry UF milk is 
already being imported for use in American cheese plants, in violation 
of FDA regulations.
  We need to know what the facts are so we can develop an appropriate 
response. At a minimum, we need to understand first how much UF milk is 
coming into the country and what it is used for. I would ask the 
chairman of the subcommittee if he would be willing to work with us to 
get answers to those questions through the GAO and other sources.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I, too, have an interest in ultrafiltered 
milk. I believe it is prudent to have empirical facts in order to 
understand the specifics of a somewhat muddled portion of the dairy 
production and cheese-making process.
  I would offer to the gentleman that we will jointly direct either the 
GAO or the committee S&I staff to conduct a factual investigation into 
how much UF milk is produced in this country and how much is being 
imported and what it is used for. At that time, and with the facts on 
our side, I am confident that we will be able to address the issue in 
an intelligent and productive manner.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman.
  Now I would like to turn to another subject, Mr. Chairman. That is 
the Dairy Export Incentive Program.
  I am concerned that the USDA is not being aggressive enough in 
encouraging dairy exports through the Dairy Export Incentive Program, 
or DEIP, which allows us to compete in world markets with highly 
subsidized exports in the European Union.
  About 10 percent of DEIP contracts are apparently canceled, I 
understand due mainly to price undercutting by our competitors. For 
whatever the reason, we apparently have about 40,000 metric tons of 
canceled nonfat dry milk contracts dating back to June of 1995. This 
canceled tonnage can be reprogrammed for export by allowing exporters 
to rebid for them, but the Foreign Agricultural Service appears 
reluctant to do that, perhaps fearing that it may be taken to the WTO 
court by the European Union.
  Mr. Chairman, as we know, DEIP saves money. It is cheaper to export 
surplus nonfat dry milk than it is for USDA to buy it and store it. 
Removing this product from the domestic market would have a beneficial 
impact on dairy prices. As such, again, I would ask the chair of the 
subcommittee to help me convince USDA to propose a solution to resolve 
the problem by the time we have reached conference on this bill, one 
that might include establishing a procedure for automatic rebidding of 
canceled tonnage.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, again, I would be pleased to work with the 
gentleman to address his concerns, as they are shared by myself and 
many others. It seems the administration has been entirely too willing 
to roll over to our competitors without looking to the interests of 
America's farmers and ranchers first, and anything we can do to reverse 
the trend will be a step forward.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise the question of cranberries.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was allowed to proceed for 4 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, with respect to that product, cranberry 
growers, as we know, like all farmers today, it seems they are in dire 
straits due to overproduction, massive overproduction and lower prices. 
It costs about $35 per barrel to produce cranberries. Some growers in 
my district are getting as little as $9 or $10 a barrel for their crop.
  The USDA recently announced its support for industry-proposed volume 
controls that are desperately needed to get a handle on overproduction. 
That is part of the solution, but will add to the farm income problems 
those cranberry growers are facing, so it seems to me we have to look 
for more things that can be done.
  Another part of the solution might be for USDA to purchase surplus 
products. USDA has been very responsive so far looking for 
opportunities to purchase surplus product, but much more needs to be 
done if we are to restore balance to supply and demand.
  As we know, cranberries are among the specialty crops eligible for 
purchase by the Secretary, with $200 million provided from the 
recently-passed crop insurance bill.
  Would the chairman work with me to urge USDA to aggressively use the 
authority it has to purchase surplus cranberry products in a way that 
will make a significant difference to the industry?
  Mr. SKEEN. If the gentleman will yield further, I will be glad to 
work with the gentleman towards that end.
  Mr. OBEY. I would also appreciate it if the chairman would also help 
us to explore the possibility of helping growers through the current 
difficult times with direct payments.
  The Cranberry Industry estimates that $20 million will improve income 
by about $3 to $4 per barrel for each grower. This bill already 
includes $100 million direct assistance to apple and potato growers. We 
have helped pork farmers, dairy farmers, wheat, corn, cotton, rice, 
oilseeds, and many others.
  Would the chairman of the subcommittee be willing to work with me to 
ensure that America's cranberry growers receive the same kind of 
consideration in this respect that many other farmers have received?
  Mr. SKEEN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, again, I would be 
very happy to work with the gentleman, as I, too, believe that 
specialty crops do not receive the support and attention that they 
deserve. Cranberries would definitely fall into that category.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the chairman, and I appreciate his consideration.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, recently I introduced H.R. 4652, the Quality Cheese Act 
of 2000. This bipartisan bill would prohibit the FDA from allowing the 
use of dry ultrafiltered milk in the making of natural cheese.
  My reason for introducing the bill was simple. Dry ultrafiltered 
milk, which is a milk derivative, can come in the United States 
virtually duty-free. It can take the place of domestically produced 
milk in cheese vats and the consumer cannot tell the difference. Using 
imported dry ultrafiltered milk would also undercut our domestic dairy 
farmers' market for their milk. My Wisconsin dairy farmers are already 
receiving the lowest price for their milk in over 20 years. We cannot 
allow their market to be further eroded.
  There have been reports in farm publications that there are large 
volumes of dry ultrafiltered milk currently being imported. That is 
perfectly legal, but we do not know what the dry ultrafiltered milk is 
being used for. If this dry ultrafiltered milk is being used in natural 
cheese-making, it is being used illegally, to the detriment of 
consumers and the dairy farmers I represent.

[[Page 13579]]

  It is my hope that the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the 
distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies of the 
Committee on Appropriations, will work with myself and the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to find an answer to this important question.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. BALDWIN. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, as the gentlewoman knows, I also have an 
interest in ultrafiltered milk, as I recently discussed with the 
gentlewoman's colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). I 
believe it is wise to understand the specifics of a somewhat muddled 
segment of the dairy production and cheese-making production.
  Accordingly, we have to agree to jointly direct either the GAO or the 
subcommittee's S&I staff to conduct a factual investigation into how 
much UF milk is produced in this country and how much is being imported 
and what is it used for, and at that time, with the facts on our side, 
I am confident that we will be able to address the issue in an 
intelligent and productive manner.
  I appreciate the gentlewoman's concerns, and look forward to working 
with her on behalf of the Nation's dairy industry.
  Ms. BALDWIN. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Chairman.


             Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio

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

       Amendment No. 38 offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio:
       Page 58, line 4, insert after the colon the following: 
     ``Provided further, That $3,000,000 may be for activities 
     carried out pursuant to section 512 of the Federal Food, 
     Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to new animal drugs, in 
     addition to the amounts otherwise available under this 
     heading for such activities:''.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, this amendment concerns antibiotic 
resistance from the use of antibiotics in livestock.
  I would like to start with a story. Imagine your 7-year-old daughter 
is very sick from food poisoning. You take her to the hospital and 
antibiotics do not help. In a week, she dies a painful death. The 
autopsy shows that her body is riddled with E. coli bacteria which ate 
away at her organs from her brain down. This is a true story, and it 
happened to a family in northeast Ohio 2 years ago.
  We thought we were winning the war against infectious diseases. With 
the introduction of antibiotics in the 1940s, humans gained an 
overwhelming advantage in the fight against bacteria that cause 
infectious diseases, but the war is not over.
  Mr. Chairman, 2 weeks ago, the World Health Organization issued a 
ringing warning against antibiotic resistance. Around the world, 
microbes are mutating at an alarming rate into the new strains that 
fail to respond to drugs.
  Dr. Marcos Esponal of the World Health Organization said, ``we 
already have lost some of the current good antibiotics, streptomycin 
for TB; it's almost lost. Chloroquin for malaria, it's lost; 
penicillin, nobody uses it now; if we keep the same pace, we will be 
losing other potent and powerful drugs. So a window of opportunity is 
closing, and I would say if we don't act now, in 5 to 10 years, we will 
have a major crisis''; words from the World Health Organization.
  We need to develop, Mr. Chairman, new antibiotics but it is too soon 
obviously to give up on the ones we have. By using antibiotics and 
antimicrobials more wisely and more sparingly, we can slow down 
antibiotic resistance.
  We need to change the way drugs are given to people to be sure, but 
we also need to look at the way drugs are given to animals. According 
to the WHO, 50 percent of all antibiotics are used in agriculture, both 
for animals and for plants. In the U.S., livestock producers use drugs 
to treat sick herds and flocks legitimately. They also feed a steady 
diet of antibiotics for healthy livestock so they will gain weight more 
quickly and be ready for market sooner.
  Many of these drugs are the same ones used to treat infections in 
people, including tetracycline. Prolonged exposure to antibiotics in 
farm animals provide a breeding ground science tells us for resistance 
strains of E. coli, salmonella and other bacteria harmful to humans. 
When transferred to people through food, it can cause dangerous 
infections.
  Last week, an interagency task force issued a draft Public Health 
Action Plan to combat antimicrobial resistance. The plan provides a 
blueprint for specific, coordinated Federal actions. A top priority 
action item in the draft plan highlights work already underway at the 
Food and Drug Administration's Center for Veterinary Medicine.
  In December of 1998, the FDA issued a proposed framework for 
evaluating and regulating new animal drugs in light of their 
contribution to antibiotic resistance in humans. The agency proposes to 
evaluate the drugs on the basis of their importance in human medicine 
and the potential exposure of humans to resistant bacteria that come 
from animals.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would direct $3 million toward the 
Center for Veterinary Medicine's work on antibiotic resistance related 
to animal drugs. CVM Director Sundloff has stated that antibiotic 
resistance is the Center's top priority. However, the framework 
document states the agency will look first at approvals for new animal 
drugs and will look at drugs already in use in animals as time and 
resources permit.
  We think an additional $3 million would give a significant boost to 
the ability of the Center for Veterinary Medicine to move forward on 
antibiotic resistance. Our amendment directs FDA to shift these funds 
from within the agency, while leaving the decision on the sources of 
the offset to the agency itself.
  Please note the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Chairman, has 
recommended a $53 million budget increase for FDA. Given this increase, 
we believe the agency can free up $3 million of that increase for its 
work on antibiotic resistance without harming other programs.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for his support, and ask for support of Members 
of the House for this amendment. The lives of our young children and 
our elderly parents, the people most vulnerable to food-borne illness, 
may be at stake.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, it provides an additional $3 million for a particular 
FDA activity, presumably to be funded at the expense of other FDA 
priorities.
  I understand the forthright interest of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Brown) in this situation and what the gentleman wants to do. The 
committee has fully funded the President's fiscal year 2001 budget 
request for new animal drug review, as can be seen on page 60 of the 
committee report on this bill.
  The President requested $62,761,000 for the animal drugs and feeds 
program, an increase of $14,048,000 over fiscal year 2000. The 
committee fully funded the administration's request, which is a 
generous 22 percent increase.
  Since the request was fully funded, I oppose the amendment and urge 
my colleagues to do the same. Please vote no on the amendment.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and rise to 
support the Brown amendment to increase the antibiotic resistance 
funding by $3 million. Earlier this month, the World Health 
Organization issued a strong warning against antibiotic resistance.
  If I may quote from the WHO, they said, ``the world may only have a 
decade or two to make optimal use of many of the medicines presently 
available to stop infectious diseases. We are literally in a race 
against time to bring levels of infectious disease down worldwide 
before the disease wears the drugs down first''; that is by Mr. David

[[Page 13580]]

Heymann, executive director of the World Health Organization's 
communicable disease program.
  Mr. Chairman, while many factors contribute to antibiotic resistance, 
an important cause is the overuse of antibiotics in livestock, both for 
treating disease and promoting faster growth. Many livestock receive a 
steady diet of antibiotics that are used in human medicine, especially 
tetracycline and penicillin.
  Antibiotic-resistant microbes are then transferred from animals to 
humans primarily in food, causing infection from salmonella and E. coli 
that are difficult or impossible to treat.
  Children and the elderly are most at risk for serious illness or 
death. The World Health Organization recommends reducing antibiotic use 
in animals to protect our own human health.
  The Food and Drug Administration's Center for Veterinary Medicine, 
CVM, is taking steps to reduce the problem of antibiotic resistance 
from drug use in livestock. The agency's plan primarily addresses new 
animal drugs and will address drugs currently in use when resources 
permit.
  That is where the Brown amendment comes in. This amendment would 
increase funding for the Food and Drug Administration's Center for 
Veterinary Medicine by $3 million for activities related to antibiotic 
resistance. Since the committee is recommending that the FDA receive an 
increase of $53 million, the Brown amendment would simply direct the 
agency to allocate an additional $3 million from the $53 million for 
this very important work.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues, both Democrats and 
Republicans, to support the Brown amendment and this very important 
program.
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in support of the Brown amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring to the attention of the gentleman 
from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) and the body that this certainly has 
been described as a very serious issue in America today. I appreciate 
the opposition of the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) to it 
on the basis of the funding. We do not know exactly where the funding 
is coming from, and I also understand that this is an issue that was 
not brought to the attention of the committee or subcommittee prior to 
today for increased funding.
  I would like to let the body know that there is some funding in the 
food safety initiative and the FDA has the jurisdiction, or the 
responsibility, of looking at these kinds of issues and monitoring 
this, and we are absolutely not doing a sufficient job. I think that we 
do need some additional resources and efforts in this area.
  I would encourage, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. 
Skeen) to try to work with us to see if we could not find some 
additional funding as we move into conference, but I would like to 
support the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       In addition, mammography user fees authorized by 42 U.S.C. 
     263(b) may be credited to this account, to remain available 
     until expended.
       In addition, export certification user fees authorized by 
     21 U.S.C. 381, as amended, 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, $11,350,000, to remain available until 
     expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b).

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                  Commodity Futures 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; the rental of 
     space (to include multiple year leases) in the District of 
     Columbia and elsewhere; and not to exceed $25,000 for 
     employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109, $69,000,000, including not to 
     exceed $2,000 for official reception and representation 
     expenses: Provided, That for fiscal year 2001 and thereafter, 
     the Commission is authorized to charge reasonable fees to 
     attendees of Commission sponsored educational events and 
     symposia to cover the Commission's costs of providing those 
     events and symposia, and notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, said 
     fees shall be credited to this account, to be available 
     without further appropriation.

                       Farm Credit Administration


                 Limitation on Administrative Expenses

       Not to exceed $36,800,000 (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.

                     TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       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 389 passenger 
     motor vehicles, of which 385 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. Not less than $1,500,000 of the appropriations of 
     the Department of Agriculture in this Act for research and 
     service work authorized by sections 1 and 10 of the Act of 
     June 29, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 427, 427i; commonly known as the 
     Bankhead-Jones Act), subtitle A of title II and section 302 
     of the Act of August 14, 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq.), and 
     chapter 63 of title 31, United States Code, shall be 
     available for contracting in accordance with such Acts and 
     chapter.
       Sec. 704. The Secretary may transfer funds provided under 
     this Act and other available unobligated 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: 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.
       Sec. 705. 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, 
     fruit fly program, integrated systems acquisition project, 
     boll weevil program, up to 10 percent of the screwworm 
     program, and up to $2,000,000 for costs associated with 
     colocating regional offices; Food Safety and Inspection 
     Service, field automation and information management project; 
     funds appropriated for rental payments; Cooperative State 
     Research, Education, and Extension Service, funds for 
     competitive research grants (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)) and funds for 
     the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund; Farm Service 
     Agency, salaries and expenses funds made available to county 
     committees; Foreign Agricultural Service, middle-income 
     country training program and up to $2,000,000 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. 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; commonly known as the Agricultural Act 
     of 1954).
       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. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     commodities acquired by the Department in connection with the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation and section 32 price support 
     operations may be used, as authorized by law (15 U.S.C. 714c 
     and 7 U.S.C. 612c), to provide commodities to individuals in 
     cases of hardship as determined by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture.
       Sec. 710. 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.

[[Page 13581]]

       Sec. 711. 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 19 percent of total Federal 
     funds provided under each award: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding 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. 712. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     all loan levels provided in this Act shall be considered 
     estimates, not limitations.
       Sec. 713. 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 telephone bank program account; the rural 
     electrification and telecommunications loans program account; 
     the rural housing insurance fund program account; and the 
     rural economic development loans program account.
       Sec. 714. Such sums as may be necessary for the current 
     fiscal year pay raises for programs funded by this Act shall 
     be absorbed within the levels appropriated by this Act.
       Sec. 715. Notwithstanding chapter 63 of title 31, United 
     States Code, marketing services of the Agricultural Marketing 
     Service; the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards 
     Administration; the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
     Service; and the food safety activities of the Food Safety 
     and Inspection Service may use cooperative agreements to 
     reflect a relationship between the Agricultural Marketing 
     Service; the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards 
     Administration; the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
     Service; or the Food Safety and Inspection Service and a 
     State or Cooperator to carry out agricultural marketing 
     programs, to carry out programs to protect the Nation's 
     animal and plant resources, or to carry out educational 
     programs or special studies to improve the safety of the 
     Nation's food supply.
       Sec. 716. Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
     (including provisions of law requiring competition), the 
     Secretary of Agriculture may hereafter enter into cooperative 
     agreements (which may provide for the acquisition of goods or 
     services, including personal services) with a State, 
     political subdivision, or agency thereof, a public or private 
     agency, organization, or any other person, 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 Natural 
     Resources Conservation Service; and (2) all parties will 
     contribute resources to the accomplishment of these 
     objectives: Provided, That Commodity Credit Corporation funds 
     obligated for such purposes shall not exceed the level 
     obligated by the Commodity Credit Corporation for such 
     purposes in fiscal year 1998.
       Sec. 717. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     retire more than 5 percent of the Class A stock of the Rural 
     Telephone Bank or to maintain any account or subaccount 
     within the accounting records of the Rural Telephone Bank the 
     creation of which has not specifically been authorized by 
     statute: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this Act may be used to transfer to the Treasury 
     or to the Federal Financing Bank any unobligated balance of 
     the Rural Telephone Bank telephone liquidating account which 
     is in excess of current requirements and such balance shall 
     receive interest as set forth for financial accounts in 
     section 505(c) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990.
       Sec. 718. Of the funds made available by this Act, not more 
     than $1,500,000 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. 719. 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. 720. 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. 721. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available to the Department of Agriculture shall be used to 
     transmit or otherwise make available to any non-Department of 
     Agriculture employee questions or responses to questions that 
     are a result of information requested for the appropriations 
     hearing process.
       Sec. 722. 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.
       Sec. 723. (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, whichever 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.
       Sec. 724. With the exception of funds needed to administer 
     and conduct oversight of grants awarded and obligations 
     incurred prior to enactment of this Act, 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 section 793 of Public Law 104-127, the Fund for 
     Rural America (7 U.S.C. 2204f).
       Sec. 725. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this 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 $174,000,000.
       Sec. 726. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     available to the Department of Agriculture in the current 
     fiscal year or thereafter may be used to administer the 
     provision of contract payments to a producer under the 
     Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.) 
     for contract acreage on which wild rice is planted unless the 
     contract payment is reduced by an acre for each contract acre 
     planted to wild rice.
       Sec. 727. With the exception of funds needed to administer 
     and conduct oversight of grants awarded and obligations 
     incurred prior to enactment of this Act, 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. 728. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act shall be used to carry out any 
     commodity purchase program that would prohibit eligibility or 
     participation by farmer-owned cooperatives.
       Sec. 729. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries and 
     expenses of personnel to carry out a conservation farm option 
     program, as authorized by section 1240M of the Food Security 
     Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839bb).
       Sec. 730. None of the funds made available by this Act or 
     any other Act for any fiscal year may be used to carry out 
     section 203(h) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 
     U.S.C. 1622(h)) unless the Secretary of Agriculture inspects 
     and certifies agricultural processing equipment, and imposes 
     a fee for the inspection and certification, in a manner that 
     is similar to the inspection and certification of 
     agricultural products under that section, as determined by 
     the Secretary: Provided, That this provision shall not affect 
     the

[[Page 13582]]

     authority of the Secretary to carry out the Federal Meat 
     Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Poultry Products 
     Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.), or the Egg Products 
     Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 1031 et seq.).
       Sec. 731. None of the funds appropriated by this Act 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, 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 2002 appropriations Act.
       Sec. 732. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act shall be used to carry out a Community 
     Food Security program or any similar activity within the 
     United States Department of Agriculture without the prior 
     approval of the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses 
     of Congress.
       Sec. 733. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this or any other Act may be used to carry out 
     provision of section 612 of Public Law 105-185.

  Mr. SKEEN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the remainder of title VII through page 72, line 4 be considered 
as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to this portion of the bill?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
         Sec. 734. Hereafter no funds shall be used for the Kyoto 
     Protocol, including such Kyoto mechanisms as carbon emissions 
     trading schemes and the Clean Development Mechanism that are 
     found solely in the Kyoto Protocol and nowhere in the laws of 
     the United States.


              Amendment No. 58 Offered by Mr. Knollenberg

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

       Amendment No. 58 offered by Mr. Knollenberg:
       Page 72, line 5, strike Section 734 and Insert as Section 
     734:
       None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be used to 
     propose or issue rules, regulations, decrees, or orders for 
     the purpose of implementation, or in preparation for 
     implementation, of the Kyoto Protocol which was adopted on 
     December 11, 1997, in Kyoto, Japan, at the Third Conference 
     of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on 
     Climate Change, which has not been submitted to the Senate 
     for advice and consent to ratification pursuant to article 
     II, section 2, clause 2, of the United States Constitution, 
     and which has not entered into force pursuant to article 25 
     of the Protocol; Provided further, the limitation established 
     in this section not apply to any activity otherwise 
     authorized by law.

  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I want to state at the outset that 
this amendment makes the language for this Agriculture Appropriations 
bill, H.R. 4461, exactly the same, word-for-word, as the language in 
the energy and water appropriations bill, the same, word-for-word, that 
will be in the foreign operations bill that will come before this body 
this week.
  This language passed by voice vote with no opposition in about 1 
minute just a few days ago. I would like to make four quick key points 
that are actually directed in this amendment. Number one, no agency can 
proceed with activities that are not specifically authorized and 
funded. Number two, no new authority is granted. Number three, neither 
the United Nations framework convention on climate control, nor the 
Kyoto Protocol are self-executing and specific implementing legislation 
is required for any regulation, program or initiative. Number four, 
since the Kyoto Protocol has not ratified and implementing legislation 
has not been approved by Congress, nothing contained exclusively in 
that treaty is funded.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to urge all Members to support what is a 
bipartisan supported amendment, and it has been our effort to 
strengthen through clarification and offer consistently in all of these 
bills and we think that is the proper approach, it simplifies things, 
clarifies things and I think strengthens things.
  Mr. Chairman, in the morning two days ago, the House Appropriations 
Committee accepted my amendment to the Foreign Operations 
Appropriations bill. That afternoon an amendment that the gentleman 
from Indiana Mr. Visclosky offered on the Energy and Water 
Appropriations bill was exactly the same wording as what I offered and 
what was accepted in the full House Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that this amendment regarding the 
Kyoto Protocol offered by me and then Mr. Visclosky and now again by me 
cannot, under the Rules of the House of Representatives, authorize 
anything whatsoever on this Agriculture Appropriations bill, H.R. 106-
4461, lest it be subject to a point of order.
  This amendment shall not go beyond clarification and recognition of 
the original and enduring meaning of the law that has existed for years 
now--specifically that no funds be spent on unauthorized activities for 
the fatally flawed and unratified Kyoto Protocol.
  Mr. Chairman, the whole nation deserves to hear the plea of this 
Administration for clarification of the Kyoto Protocol funding 
limitation. The plea came from the coordinator of all environmental 
policy for this Administration, George Frampton, in his position as 
Acting Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality. On March 1, 2000, 
on behalf of the Administration he stated before the VA/HUD 
appropriations subcommittee, and I quote, ``Just to finish our dialogue 
here [about the Kyoto Protocol funding limitation], my point was that 
it is the very uncertainty about the scope of the language . . . that 
gives rise to our wanting to not have the continuation of this 
uncertainty created next year.''
  Mr. Chairman, I agree with Mr. Obey when he stated to the 
Administration, ``You're nuts!'' upon learning of the fatally flawed 
Kyoto Protocol that Vice President Gore negotiated.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the Congress for the focus on the activities of 
this Administration, both authorized and unauthorized.
  This amendment shall be read to be a clarification that is fully 
consistent with the provision that has been signed by President Clinton 
in six current appropriations laws.
  A few key points must be reviewed:
  First, no agency can proceed with activities that are not 
specifically authorized and funded. Mr. Chairman, there has been an 
effort to confuse the long-standing support that I as well as other 
strong supporters of the provision on the Kyoto Protocol have regarding 
important energy supply and energy conservation program. For example, 
there has never been a question about strong support for voluntary 
programs, development of clean coal technology, and improvements in 
energy conservation for all sectors of our economy. Notwithstanding 
arguments that have been made on the floor in recent days, I have 
never, ever tried to undermine, eliminate, delete, or delay any 
programs that have been specifically authorized and funded.
  Second, no new authority is granted.
  Third, since neither the United Nations Framework Convention on 
Climate Change nor the Kyoto Protocol are self executing, specific 
implementing legislation is required for any regulation, program, or 
initiative.
  Fourth, since the Kyoto Protocol has not been ratified and 
implementing legislation has not been approved by Congress, nothing 
contained exclusively in that treaty is funded.
  Mr. Chairman, as you know, the Administration negotiated the Kyoto 
Climate Change Protocol some time ago but has decided not to submit 
this treaty to the United States Senate for ratification. All 
indications from this Administration lead to the conclusion that they 
have no intention of ever submitting the Kyoto Protocol to the Senate.
  Pursuant to Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States 
Constitution, the President only has the power to make treaties ``by 
and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.'' It is therefore 
unconstitutional for the President to make a treaty in contravention of 
the Advice of the Senate. The unanimous (95-0) advice of the Senate was 
given in Senate Resolution 105-98, referred to as the Byrd-Hagel 
Resolution.
  Likewise it is therefore unconstitutional for the President to make a 
treaty with no intention of ever seeking the consent of the Senate.
  The Protocol places severe restrictions on the United States while 
exempting most countries, including China, India, Mexico, and Brazil, 
from taking measures to reduce carbon dioxide equivalent emissions. The 
Administration undertook this course of action despite

[[Page 13583]]

unanimous support in the United States Senate for the Senate's advice 
in the form of the Byrd-Hagel resolution calling for commitments by all 
nations and on the condition that the Protocol not adversely impact the 
economy of the United States.
  We are also concerned that actions taken by Federal agencies 
constitute the implementation of this treaty before its submission to 
Congress as required by the Constitution of the United States. Clearly, 
Congress cannot allow any agency to attempt to interpret current law to 
avoid constitutional due process.
  Clearly, we would not need this debate if the Administration would 
send the treaty to the Senate. The treaty would be disposed of and we 
could return to a more productive process for addressing our energy 
future.
  During numerous hearings on this issue, the administration has not 
been willing to engage in this debate. For example, it took months to 
extract the documents the administration used for its flawed economics. 
The message is clear--there is no interest in sharing with the American 
public the real price tag of this policy.
  A balanced public debate will be required because there is much to be 
learned about the issue before we commit this country to unprecedented 
curbs on energy use while most of the world is exempt.
  Worse yet, some treaty supporters see this as only a first step to 
elimination of fossil energy production. Unfortunately, the 
Administration has chosen to keep this issue out of the current debate.
  I look forward to working to assure that the administration and EPA 
understand the boundaries of the current law. It will be up to Congress 
to assure that backdoor implementation of the Kyoto Protocol does not 
occur.
  In that regard I would like to include in the Record a letter with 
legislative history of the Clean Air Act reported by Congressman John 
Dingell who was the Chairman of the House Conference on the Clearn Air 
Act amendments of 1990. No one knows the Clean Air Act like Congressman 
Dingell. He makes clear, and I quote, ``Congress has not enacted 
implementing legislation authorizing EPA or any other agency to 
regulate greenhouse gases.''
  In closing, I look forward to the report language to clarify what 
activities are and are not authorized.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following letter for the Record:
                                                  October 5, 1999.
     Hon. David M. McIntosh,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural 
         Resources, and Regulatory Affairs, Committee on 
         Government Reform, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that you have asked, based 
     on discussions between our staffs, about the disposition by 
     the House-Senate conferees of the amendments in 1990 to the 
     Clean Air Act (CAA) regarding greenhouse gases such as 
     methane and carbon dioxide. In making this inquiry, you call 
     my attention to an April 10, 1998 Environmental Protection 
     Agency (EPA) memorandum entitled `EPA's Authority to Regulate 
     Pollutants Emitted by Electric Power Generation Sources' and 
     an October 12, 1998 memorandum entitled `The Authority of EPA 
     to Regulate Carbon Dioxide Under the Clean Air Act' prepared 
     for the National Mining Association. The latter memorandum 
     discusses the legislative history of the 1990 amendments.
       First, the House-passed bill (H.R. 3030) never included any 
     provision regarding the regulation of any greenhouse gas, 
     such as methane or carbon dioxide, nor did the bill address 
     global climate change. The House, however, did include 
     provisions aimed at implementing the Montreal Protocol on 
     Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.
       Second, as to the Senate version (S. 1630) of the proposed 
     amendments, the October 12, 1998 memorandum correctly points 
     out that the Senate did address greenhouse gas matters and 
     global warming, along with provisions implementing the 
     Montreal Protocol. Nevertheless, only Montreal Protocol 
     related provisions were agreed to by the House-Senate 
     conferees (see Conf. Rept. 101-952, Oct. 26, 1990).
       However, I should point out that Public Law 101-549 of 
     November 15, 1990, which contains the 1990 amendments to the 
     CAA, includes some provisions, such as sections 813, 817 and 
     819-821, that were enacted as free-standing provisions 
     separate from the CAA. Although the Public Law often refers 
     to the `Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,' the Public Law 
     does not specify that reference as the `short title' of all 
     of the provisions included the Public Law.
       One of these free-standing provisions, section 821, 
     entitled `Information Gathering on Greenhouse Gases 
     contributing to Global Climate Change' appears in the United 
     States code as a `note' (at 42 U.S.C. 7651k). It requires 
     regulations by the EPA to `monitor carbon dioxide emissions' 
     from `all affected sources subject to title V' of the CAA and 
     specifies that the emissions are to be reported to the EPA. 
     That section does not designate carbon dioxide as a 
     `pollutant' for any purpose.
       Finally, Title IX of the Conference Report, entitled `Clean 
     Air Research,' was primarily negotiated at the time by the 
     House and Senate Science Committees, which had no regulatory 
     jurisdiction under House-Senate Rules. This title amended 
     section 103 of the CAA by adding new subsections (c) through 
     (k). New subsection (g), entitled `Pollution Prevention and 
     Control,' calls for `non-regulatory strategies and 
     technologies for air pollution prevention.' While it refers, 
     as noted in the EPA memorandum, to carbon dioxide as a 
     `pollutant,' House and Senate conferees never agreed to 
     designate carbon dioxide as a pollutant for regulatory or 
     other purposes.
       Based on my review of this history and my recollection of 
     the discussions, I would have difficulty concluding that the 
     House-Senate conferees, who rejected the Senate regulatory 
     provisions (with the exception of the above-referenced 
     section 821), contemplated regulating greenhouse gas 
     emissions or addressing global warming under the Clean Air 
     Act. Shortly after enactment of Public Law 101-549, the 
     United Nations General Assembly established in December 1990 
     the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee that ultimately 
     led to the Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was 
     ratified by the United States after advice and consent by the 
     Senate. That Convention is, of course, not self-executing, 
     and the Congress has not enacted implementing legislation 
     authorizing EPA or any other agency to regulate greenhouse 
     gases.
       I hope that this is responsive.
       With best wishes,
           Sincerely,
                                                  John D. Dingell,
                                                   Ranking Member.

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Knollenberg 
amendment. His characterization of the language is absolutely correct. 
It is the same as energy and water, it is the same as full committee 
has reported for foreign operations and essentially the same intent as 
Veterans Administration, HUD and Urban Development as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate his work in a bipartisan fashion and, 
again, I agree with the premise of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Knollenberg), Kyoto is not the law of the land, but we want to ensure 
that where we have authorized programs and where there is duplicate 
language that the law can also be followed. I do appreciate the 
initiative of the gentleman and would ask my colleagues to support his 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Sec. 735. After taking any action involving the seizure, 
     quarantine, treatment, destruction, or disposal of wheat 
     infested with karnal bunt, the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     compensate the producers and handlers for economic losses 
     incurred as the result of the action not later than 45 days 
     after receipt of a claim that includes all appropriate 
     paperwork.
       Sec. 736. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Town of Lloyd, New York and the Town of Harris, New York 
     shall be eligible for loans and grants provided through the 
     Rural Community Advancement Program.

                              {time}  1630


                  Amendment No. 56 Offered by Mr. Boyd

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

       Amendment No. 56 offered by Mr. Boyd:
       Page 72, lines 18 and 19, strike ``Town of Harris'' and 
     insert ``Town of Thompson''.

  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure that we have the 
amendment correct. It should be the amendment that changes the ``Town 
of Harris'' to the ``Town of Thompson.''
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida is correct.
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, it is a technical amendment. I ask support 
for the amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I accept the gentleman's amendment and recommend that 
the House do so as well.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read:
  The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 13584]]


       Sec. 737. Hereafter, notwithstanding section 502(h)(7) of 
     the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1472(h)(7)), the fee 
     collected by the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to a 
     guaranteed loan under such section 502(h) at the time of the 
     issuance of such guarantee may be in an amount equal to not 
     more than 2 percent of the principal obligation of the loan.
       Sec. 738. The Secretary of Agriculture may use funds 
     available under this and subsequent appropriation Acts to 
     employ individuals to perform services outside the United 
     States as determined by the agencies to be necessary or 
     appropriate for carrying out programs and activities abroad; 
     and such employment actions, hereafter referred to as 
     Personal Service Agreements (PSA), are authorized to be 
     negotiated, the terms of the PSA to be prescribed and work to 
     be performed, where necessary, without regard to such 
     statutory provisions as related to the negotiation, making 
     and performance of contracts and performance of work in the 
     United States. Individuals employed under a PSA to perform 
     such services outside the United States shall not by virtue 
     of such employment be considered employees of the United 
     States Government for purposes of any law administered by the 
     Office of Personnel Management. Such individuals may be 
     considered employees within the meaning of the Federal 
     Employee Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. 8101 et seq. Further, 
     that Government service credit shall be accrued for the time 
     employed under a PSA should the individual later be hired 
     into a permanent U.S. Government position within FAS or 
     another U.S. Government agency if their authorities so 
     permit.
       Sec. 739. (a) In General.--Section 141 of the Agricultural 
     Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7251) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(4), by striking ``and 2000''; and 
     inserting ``through 2001''; and
       (2) in subsection (h), by striking ``2000'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``2001''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 142(e) of the 
     Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7252(e)) is 
     amended by striking ``2001'' and inserting ``2002''.
       Sec. 740. In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated or 
     made available by this Act, $4,000,000 is appropriated for 
     the purpose of providing Bill Emerson and Mickey Leland 
     Hunger Fellowships through the Congressional Hunger Center.
       Sec. 741. Notwithstanding section 718, title VII of Public 
     Law 105-277, as amended, funds made available hereafter in 
     annual appropriations acts may be used to provide market 
     access program assistance pursuant to section 203 of the 
     Agricultural Trade Act of 1978, as amended (7 U.S.C. 5623), 
     to any agricultural commodity as defined in section 102 of 
     the Agriculture Trade Act of 1978, as amended (7 U.S.C. 
     5602), except for products specifically excluded by section 
     1302, title I of Public Law 103-66, as amended, the Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order on this section 
restoring the eligibility of mink for MAP funds.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members who wish to be heard on the 
point of order that this section constitutes legislation?
  The Chair finds, that this provision explicitly supersedes existing 
law in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is 
sustained, and the provision is stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Sec. 742. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to include a flood plain 
     determination in any environmental impact study conducted by 
     or at the request of the Farm Service Agency for financial 
     obligations or guarantees to aquaculture facilities pending 
     the completion by the Secretary of Agriculture and submission 
     to Congress of a study regarding the environmental impact of 
     aquaculture activities in flood plains in Arkansas.
       Sec. 743. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or 
     regulation, hereafter Friends of the National Arboretum, an 
     organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from taxation under section 
     501(a) of such Code incorporated in the District of Columbia, 
     shall not be considered a prohibited source with respect to 
     the United States National Arboretum and its employees for 
     any reason, including for the purposes relating to gifts, 
     compensation, or any other donations of any size or kind, so 
     long as Friends of the National Arboretum remains an 
     organization described under section 501(c)(3) of such Code 
     and continues to conduct its operations exclusively for the 
     benefit of the United States National Arboretum.
       Sec. 744. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary shall include the value of lost production when 
     determining the amount of compensation to be paid to owners, 
     as provided in Public Law 106-113, appendix E, title II, 
     section 204, for the cost of tree replacement for commercial 
     trees destroyed as part of the Citrus Canker Eradication 
     Program in Florida.
       Sec. 745. (a) The Secretary of Agriculture shall issue 
     regulations requiring, for each child nutrition program, 
     that--
       (1) alternate protein products which are used to resemble 
     and substitute, in part, for meat, poultry, or seafood shall 
     meet the nutritional specifications for vegetable protein 
     products set forth in section 2(e)(3) of the matter relating 
     to vegetable protein products in appendix A to part 210 of 
     title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on April 
     9, 2000; and
       (2) if alternate protein products comprise 30 percent or 
     more of a meat, poultry, or seafood product, that fact shall 
     be disclosed at the point of service.
       (b) The Secretary shall require that the regulations issued 
     pursuant to subsection (a) shall be implemented by each 
     program participant not later than January 1, 2001, and 
     thereafter.
       Sec. 746. Effective 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act and continuing for the remainder of 
     fiscal year 2001 and each subsequent fiscal year, 
     establishments in the United States that slaughter or process 
     birds of the order Ratitae, such as ostriches, emus and 
     rheas, and squab, for distribution in commerce as human food 
     shall be subject to the ante mortem and post mortem 
     inspection, reinspection, and sanitation requirements of the 
     Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.) 
     rather than the voluntary poultry inspection program of the 
     Department of Agriculture under section 203 of the 
     Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1622).
       Sec. 747. In using funds made available under section 
     801(a) of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
     Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000 
     (Public Law 106-78; 113 Stat. 1175), or under the heading 
     ``crop loss assistance'' under ``Commodity Credit Corporation 
     Fund'' of H.R. 3425 of the 106th Congress (as contained in 
     appendix E of Public Law 106-113 (113 Stat. 1501A-289)), to 
     compensate nursery stock producers for nursery stock losses 
     caused by Hurricane Irene on October 16 and 17, 1999, the 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall treat the losses as losses to 
     the 1999 nursery stock crop.
       Sec. 748. Any regulation issued pursuant to any plan to 
     eliminate Salmonella Enteritidis illnesses due to eggs 
     (including the Action Plan to Eliminate Salmonella 
     Enteritidis Illnesses Due to Eggs, published on December 10, 
     1999) which establishes requirements for producers or packers 
     of shell eggs to conduct tests for Salmonella Enteritidis 
     shall contain provisions to defray or reimburse the costs of 
     such tests to producers or packers. Any requirements pursuant 
     to any such plan to divert eggs into pasteurization shall be 
     imposed only as a consequence of positive test results from 
     end product testing. The number of environmental tests 
     required pursuant to any such plan shall, to the extent 
     practicable, not exceed the number of such tests required 
     pursuant to existing national quality assurance programs for 
     shell eggs.
       Sec. 749. Section 321(b) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1961(b)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(3) Loans to poultry farmers.--
       ``(A) Inability to obtain insurance.--
       ``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this subtitle, the Secretary may make a loan to a poultry 
     farmer under this subtitle to cover the loss of a chicken 
     house for which the farmer did not have hazard insurance at 
     the time of the loss, if the farmer--

       ``(I) applied for, but was unable, to obtain hazard 
     insurance for the chicken house;
       ``(II) uses the loan to rebuild the chicken house in 
     accordance with industry standards in effect on the date the 
     farmer submits an application for the loan (referred to in 
     this paragraph as `current industry standards');
       ``(III) obtains, for the term of the loan, hazard insurance 
     for the full market value of the chicken house; and
       ``(IV) meets the other requirements for the loan under this 
     subtitle, other than (if the Secretary finds that the 
     applicant's farming operations have been substantially 
     affected by a major disaster or emergency designated by the 
     President under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.)) the 
     requirement that an applicant not be able to obtain 
     sufficient credit elsewhere.

       ``(ii) Amount.--The amount of a loan made to a poultry 
     farmer under clause (i) shall be an amount that will allow 
     the farmer to rebuild the chicken house in accordance with 
     current industry standards.
       ``(B) Loans to comply with current industry standards.--
       ``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this subtitle, the Secretary may make a loan to a poultry 
     farmer under this subtitle to cover the loss of a chicken 
     house for which the farmer had hazard insurance at the time 
     of the loss, if--

       ``(I) the amount of the hazard insurance is less than the 
     cost of rebuilding the chicken house in accordance with 
     current industry standards;
       ``(II) the farmer uses the loan to rebuild the chicken 
     house in accordance with current industry standards;
       ``(III) the farmer obtains, for the term of the loan, 
     hazard insurance for the full market value of the chicken 
     house; and

[[Page 13585]]

       ``(IV) the farmer meets the other requirements for the loan 
     under this subtitle, other than (if the Secretary finds that 
     the applicant's farming operations have been substantially 
     affected by a major disaster or emergency designated by the 
     President under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.)) the 
     requirement that an applicant not be able to obtain 
     sufficient credit elsewhere.

       ``(ii) Amount.--The amount of a loan made to a poultry 
     farmer under clause (i) shall be the difference between--

       ``(I) the amount of the hazard insurance obtained by the 
     farmer; and
       ``(II) the cost of rebuilding the chicken house in 
     accordance with current industry standards.''.

       Sec. 750. Public Law 105-277, division A, title XI, section 
     1121 (112 Stat. 2681-44, 2681-45) is amended by--
       (1) striking ``not later than January 1, 2000'' and 
     inserting ``not later than January 1, 2001''; and
       (2) adding the following new subsection at the end 
     thereof--
       ``(d) Additional Disbursement.--
       ``(1) Cotton stored in georgia.--The State of Georgia shall 
     use funds remaining in the indemnity fund established in 
     accordance with this section to compensate cotton producers 
     in other States who stored cotton in the State of Georgia and 
     incurred losses in 1998 or 1999 as the result of the events 
     described in subsection (a).
       ``(2) Ginners and others.--The State of Georgia may also 
     use funds remaining in the indemnity fund established in 
     accordance with this section to compensate cotton ginners and 
     others in the business of producing, ginning, warehousing, 
     buying, or selling cotton for losses they incurred in 1998 or 
     1999 as the result of the events described in subsection (a), 
     if--
       ``(A) as of March 1, 2000, the indemnity fund has not been 
     exhausted;
       ``(B) the State of Georgia provides cotton producers 
     (including cotton producers described in paragraph (1)) an 
     additional time period prior to May 1, 2000, in which to 
     establish eligibility for compensation under this section;
       ``(C) the State of Georgia determines during calendar year 
     2000 that all cotton producers in that State and cotton 
     producers in other States as described in paragraph (1) have 
     been appropriately compensated for losses incurred in 1998 or 
     1999 as described in subsection (a); and
       ``(D) such additional compensation is not made available 
     until May 1, 2000.''.


 apple market loss assistance and quality loss payments for apples and 
                                potatoes

       Sec. 751. (a) Apple Market Loss Assistance.--In order to 
     provide relief for loss of markets for apples, the Secretary 
     of Agriculture shall use $100,000,000 to make payments to 
     apple producers. Payments shall be made on a per pound basis 
     on each qualifying producer's 1999 production of apples, 
     subject to such terms and conditions on such payments as may 
     be established by the Secretary. Payments under this 
     subsection, however, shall not be made with respect to that 
     part of a farm's 1999 apple production that is in excess of 
     1.6 million pounds.
       (b) Quality Loss Payments for Apples and Potatoes.--In 
     addition, the Secretary shall use $15,000,000 to provide 
     compensation to producers of potatoes and to producers of 
     apples who suffered quality losses to their 1999 production 
     of those crops due to, or related to, a 1999 hurricane.
       (c) Non-Duplication of Payments.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this section, the payments made under this 
     section shall be designed to avoid, taken into account other 
     federal compensation programs as may apply, a duplication of 
     payments for the same loss. Payments made under Federal crop 
     insurance programs shall not, however, be considered to be 
     duplicate payments.
       (d) Funding.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall use the 
     funds, facilities, and authorities of the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation to carry out this section.
       (e) Emergency Designation.--The entire amount necessary to 
     carry out this section shall be available only to the extent 
     that an official budget request for the entire amount, that 
     includes designation of the entire amount of the request as 
     an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress: Provided, That 
     the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of 
     such Act.
       Sec. 752. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this or any other Act may be used to pay 
     salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out section 
     508(k) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(k)) 
     to reimburse approved insurance providers and agents for the 
     administrative and operating costs that exceed 20 percent of 
     the premium used to define loss ratio for plans currently 
     reimbursed at 24.5 percent and a proportional reduction for 
     the plans currently reimbursed at less than 24.5 percent.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order against 
the provision appearing on page 85, lines 6 through 15, of H.R. 4461, 
the Agriculture Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001.
  The provision cited above violates clause 2(b) of rule XXI of the 
House in that it contains legislative or authorizing language in an 
appropriations bill as noted below:
  The provision places a limitation on expenditures of the Insurance 
Fund authorized under the Federal Crop Insurance Act where such 
limitation does not exist under current law instead of confining such 
limitation on expenditures to funds made available under this act. 
Additionally, by addressing funds in other acts, the amendment changes 
existing law in violation of clause 2(b) of rule XXI of the House.
  The CHAIRMAN. Although a limitation, the section addresses funds 
outside the current bill and, therefore, does constitute legislation. 
The point of order is sustained. Section 752 is, therefore, stricken 
from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       TITLE VIII--TRADE SANCTIONS REFORM AND EXPORT ENHANCEMENT

     SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Trade Sanctions Reform and 
     Export Enhancement Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 802. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Agricultural commodity.--The term ``agricultural 
     commodity'' has the meaning given the term in section 102 of 
     the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5602).
       (2) Agricultural program.--The term ``agricultural 
     program'' means--
       (A) any program administered under the Agricultural Trade 
     Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1691 et 
     seq.);
       (B) any program administered under section 416 of the 
     Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1431);
       (C) any program administered under the Agricultural Trade 
     Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.);
       (D) the dairy export incentive program administered under 
     section 153 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (15 U.S.C. 713a-
     14);
       (E) any commercial export sale of agricultural commodities; 
     or
       (F) any export financing (including credits or credit 
     guarantees) provided by the United States Government for 
     agricultural commodities.
       (3) Joint resolution.--The term ``joint resolution'' 
     means--
       (A) in the case of section 803(a)(1), only a joint 
     resolution introduced within 10 session days of Congress 
     after the date on which the report of the President under 
     section 803(a)(1) is received by Congress, the matter after 
     the resolving clause of which is as follows: ``That Congress 
     approves the report of the President pursuant to section 
     803(a)(1) of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export 
     Enhancement Act of 2000, transmitted on _______.'', with the 
     blank completed with the appropriate date; and
       (B) in the case of section 806(1), only a joint resolution 
     introduced within 10 session days of Congress after the date 
     on which the report of the President under section 806(2) is 
     received by Congress, the matter after the resolving clause 
     of which is as follows: ``That Congress approves the report 
     of the President pursuant to section 806(1) of the Trade 
     Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000, 
     transmitted on _______.'', with the blank completed with the 
     appropriate date.
       (4) Medical device.--The term ``medical device'' has the 
     meaning given the term ``device'' in section 201 of the 
     Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321).
       (5) Medicine.--The term ``medicine'' has the meaning given 
     the term ``drug'' in section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, 
     and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321).
       (6) Unilateral agricultural sanction.--The term 
     ``unilateral agricultural sanction'' means any prohibition, 
     restriction, or condition on carrying out an agricultural 
     program with respect to a foreign country or foreign entity 
     that is imposed by the United States for reasons of foreign 
     policy or national security, except in a case in which the 
     United States imposes the measure pursuant to a multilateral 
     regime and the other member countries of that regime have 
     agreed to impose substantially equivalent measures.
       (7) Unilateral medical sanction.--The term ``unilateral 
     medical sanction'' means any prohibition, restriction, or 
     condition on exports of, or the provision of assistance 
     consisting of, medicine or a medical device with respect to a 
     foreign country or foreign entity that is imposed by the 
     United States for reasons of foreign policy or national 
     security, except in a case in which the United States imposes 
     the measure pursuant to a multilateral regime and the other 
     member countries of that regime have agreed to impose 
     substantially equivalent measures.

     SEC. 803. RESTRICTION.

       (a) New Sanctions.--Except as provided in sections 804 and 
     805 and notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     President may not impose a unilateral agricultural sanction

[[Page 13586]]

     or unilateral medical sanction against a foreign country or 
     foreign entity, unless--
       (1) not later than 60 days before the sanction is proposed 
     to be imposed, the President submits a report to Congress 
     that--
       (A) describes the activity proposed to be prohibited, 
     restricted, or conditioned; and
       (B) describes the actions by the foreign country or foreign 
     entity that justify the sanction; and
       (2) there is enacted into law a joint resolution stating 
     the approval of Congress for the report submitted under 
     paragraph (1).
       (b) Existing Sanctions.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     President shall terminate any unilateral agricultural 
     sanction or unilateral medical sanction that is in effect as 
     of the date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Exemptions.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a 
     unilateral agricultural sanction or unilateral medical 
     sanction imposed--
       (A) with respect to any program administered under section 
     416 of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1431);
       (B) with respect to the Export Credit Guarantee Program 
     (GSM-102) or the Intermediate Export Credit Guarantee Program 
     (GSM-103) established under section 202 of the Agricultural 
     Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5622); or
       (C) with respect to the dairy export incentive program 
     administered under section 153 of the Food Security Act of 
     1985 (15 U.S.C. 713a-14).

     SEC. 804. EXCEPTIONS.

       Section 803 shall not affect any authority or requirement 
     to impose (or continue to impose) a sanction referred to in 
     section 803--
       (1) against a foreign country or foreign entity--
       (A) pursuant to a declaration of war against the country or 
     entity;
       (B) pursuant to specific statutory authorization for the 
     use of the Armed Forces of the United States against the 
     country or entity;
       (C) against which the Armed Forces of the United States are 
     involved in hostilities; or
       (D) where imminent involvement by the Armed Forces of the 
     United States in hostilities against the country or entity is 
     clearly indicated by the circumstances; or
       (2) to the extent that the sanction would prohibit, 
     restrict, or condition the provision or use of any 
     agricultural commodity, medicine, or medical device that is--
       (A) controlled on the United States Munitions List 
     established under section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act 
     (22 U.S.C. 2778);
       (B) controlled on any control list established under the 
     Export Administration Act of 1979 or any successor statute 
     (50 U.S.C. App. 2401 et seq.); or
       (C) used to facilitate the development or production of a 
     chemical or biological weapon or weapon of mass destruction.

     SEC. 805. COUNTRIES SUPPORTING INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM.

       Notwithstanding section 803 and except as provided in 
     section 807, the prohibitions in effect on or after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act under section 620A of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371) on providing, 
     to the government of any country supporting international 
     terrorism, United States Government assistance, including 
     United States foreign assistance, United States export 
     assistance, or any United States credits or credit 
     guarantees, shall remain in effect for such period as the 
     Secretary of State determines under such section 620A that 
     the government of the country has repeatedly provided support 
     for acts of international terrorism.

     SEC. 806. TERMINATION OF SANCTIONS.

       Any unilateral agricultural sanction or unilateral medical 
     sanction that is imposed pursuant to the procedures described 
     in section 803(a) shall terminate not later than 2 years 
     after the date on which the sanction became effective 
     unless--
       (1) not later than 60 days before the date of termination 
     of the sanction, the President submits to Congress a report 
     containing--
       (A) the recommendation of the President for the 
     continuation of the sanction for an additional period of not 
     to exceed 2 years; and
       (B) the request of the President for approval by Congress 
     of the recommendation; and
       (2) there is enacted into law a joint resolution stating 
     the approval of Congress for the report submitted under 
     paragraph (1).

     SEC. 807. STATE SPONSORS OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this title, the export of agricultural commodities, medicine, 
     or medical devices to the government of a country that has 
     been determined by the Secretary of State to have repeatedly 
     provided support for acts of international terrorism under 
     section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 
     2371) shall only be made--
       (1) pursuant to one-year licenses issued by the United 
     States Government for contracts entered into during the one-
     year period and completed with the 12-month period beginning 
     on the date of the signing of the contract, except that, in 
     the case of the export of items used for food and for food 
     production, such one-year licenses shall otherwise be no more 
     restrictive than general licenses; and
       (2) without benefit of Federal financing, direct export 
     subsidies, Federal credit guarantees, or other Federal 
     promotion assistance programs.
       (b) Quarterly Reports.--The applicable department or agency 
     of the Federal Government shall submit to the appropriate 
     congressional committees on a quarterly basis a report on any 
     activities undertaken under subsection (a)(1) during the 
     preceding calendar quarter.
       (c) Biennial Reports.--Not later than two years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, and every two years 
     thereafter, the applicable department or agency of the 
     Federal Government shall submit a report to the appropriate 
     congressional committees on the operation of the licensing 
     system under this section for the preceding two-year period, 
     including--
       (1) the number and types of licenses applied for;
       (2) the number and types of licenses approved;
       (3) the average amount of time elapsed from the date of 
     filing of a license application until the date of its 
     approval;
       (4) the extent to which the licensing procedures were 
     effectively implemented; and
       (5) a description of comments received from interested 
     parties about the extent to which the licensing procedures 
     were effective, after the applicable department or agency 
     holds a public 30-day comment period.

     SEC. 808. CONGRESSIONAL PROCEDURES.

       (a) Referral of Report.--A report described in section 
     803(a)(1) or 806(1) shall be referred to the appropriate 
     committee or committees of the House of Representatives and 
     to the appropriate committee or committees of the Senate.
       (b) Referral of Joint Resolution.--
       (1) In general.--A joint resolution introduced in the 
     Senate shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign 
     Relations, and a joint resolution introduced in the House of 
     Representatives shall be referred to the Committee on 
     International Relations.
       (2) Reporting date.--A joint resolution referred to in 
     paragraph (1) may not be reported before the eighth session 
     day of Congress after the introduction of the joint 
     resolution.

     SEC. 809. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), this 
     title shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act, 
     and shall apply thereafter in any fiscal year.
       (b) Existing Sanctions.--In the case of any unilateral 
     agricultural sanction or unilateral medical sanction that is 
     in effect as of the date of enactment of this Act, this title 
     shall take effect 180 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, and shall apply thereafter in any fiscal year.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order 
against title VIII.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that title VIII violates clause 2 of rule XXI 
concerning legislating on an appropriations bill.
  Title VIII is legislative in nature because it changes existing law 
by lifting sanctions against terrorist states in violation of a number 
of laws, including the Trading with the Enemy Act, the Cuban Democracy 
Act, and the Cuban Liberty and Democracy Solidarity Act, among other 
laws.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member desire to be recognized on this 
point of order?
  Mr. OBEY. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. I apologize, but I was momentarily 
distracted. Did the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) just raise 
a point of order against the Nethercutt provision on the embargo?
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, that is 
correct.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that I will not try to get 
into the merits of the subject, but speaking to the point of order, the 
gentleman from Florida is obviously correct in his point of order 
because the Committee on Rules did not protect this section of the bill 
under the agreement worked out on the majority side of the aisle, which 
means at this point that there is no provision in law that will protect 
farmers; ability to export to the countries named either in this bill 
or in the supplemental appropriations bill. I personally find that to 
be regrettable.
  But because of the decision of the Committee on Rules to not protect 
this section of the bill and because of the agreement that was reached 
by the majority party caucus, farmers are left in never-never land on 
this subject. Because of that decision, the gentleman is free to make 
the point of order, and there is no way to stop it from being stricken.

[[Page 13587]]

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members who wish to be heard on the 
point of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that title VIII is entirely legislative in character. 
As such, it violates clause 2(b) of rule XXI. The point of order is 
sustained. Title VIII is stricken from the bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, since no one else seems to at the moment be 
prepared to address an urgent item, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, let me simply take some time right now to indicate that 
I think the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) has done a lot of 
hard work trying to essentially squeeze a small amount of dollars into 
an even smaller bag.
  I think the problem is that because of the unrealistic limitation 
placed upon this subcommittee by the full committee allocation, which 
was made necessary by what I consider to be a misguided budget 
resolution which passed this place, it means that this bill falls far 
short in a number of areas. It certainly falls far short with respect 
to food safety items. It falls far short with respect to resources 
needed to deal with market concentration.
  The average farmer is in danger of becoming a serf because of the 
huge concentration that we see in the poultry business, the meat 
packing business of all kinds, frankly. That is happening in other 
sectors of agriculture as well.
  The problems in agriculture, pests and diseases, the bill falls very, 
very short of where it needs to be. The conservation programs fall some 
$70 million short of the budget request. If we look at other problems, 
rural development, especially rural housing is $180 million below the 
budget request. PL-480 overseas food donation program is significantly 
below the request. Agriculture research and extension programs are $63 
million below the request.
  There are a number of problems associated with this bill, including 
the rider restricting egg safety measures to reduce salmonella 
contamination in eggs.
  I would also say that this bill is totally absent any solution to the 
price problems being faced by many farmers. We have a collapsing price 
as far as dairy farmers are concerned. Many other farmers are facing 
similar problems with the products that they produce.

                              {time}  1645

  And this bill will not be made whole until we move to conference, 
where we will be faced with a number of Senate amendments that would 
add literally billions to try to help farmers get out from under the 
impact of the misguided Freedom to Farm Act that passed this body 
several years ago.
  So I just wanted to put on record now what my reasons would be 
personally for opposing the bill when the time comes, although I 
recognize that the gentleman from New Mexico has been given virtually 
no maneuvering room in solving some of these problems. The fault lies 
not with him. The fault lies, in my view, with the budget resolution 
which was adopted in the first place, which makes it virtually 
impossible for this House to meet its responsibilities to farmers, to 
consumers of agriculture products, and to those interested in the issue 
of rural development as well.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I too wanted to compliment the chairman from New Mexico 
on a great job on this bill. I think we will have a few more 
amendments, maybe in a few minutes here, but the gentleman from 
Wisconsin brought up a couple of points I wanted to speak to.
  This is an appropriations bill. This is not policy. We are funding 
the policy that has been set by the Congress. I think there are a lot 
of things we can do to improve the future for our farmers; work harder 
on conservation to continue those efforts. I also think, as far as the 
livestock disease center that is going to be going into central Iowa, 
that that is going to be very, very important funding in this bill as 
far as the beginning of that process.
  So I think this is a good bill. Obviously, we have very tight budget 
constraints that we are working under. But we also have to look at the 
fact that 5 years ago we had projected deficits of $200 billion or more 
as far as the eye could see. It has been only with some fiscal 
restraint in this House that we have been able to talk about surpluses 
and talk about returning some money back to the people out there who 
work so hard to earn the money that we spend here every day. And it is 
very important that we spend that money wisely and just do not open the 
checkbook up or we will be back in the same kind of deficit situation 
we were previous to this.
  We have to look, as far as farm policy, I think, with open eyes about 
looking at relief as far as taxes, estate taxes, for our farmers. We 
have to look at our trade policies, the sanctions. It is unfortunate 
but it is true that the language that was the authorizing language in 
this bill for Cuba and Libya, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea was stricken 
from the bill. It will be done this year. We are going to crack that 
door open as far as lifting sanctions. But what we have to do is look 
at the rest of the sanction policy that we have, not only with the 
administration but with the Congress itself.
  We have got to learn someday that using food and medicine as weapons 
in foreign policy does not work. They never punish the people that they 
are intended to punish. What we end up doing is hurting producers who 
are trying to sell into those markets. We put sanctions on countries 
with the idea of somehow hurting them, and all we do is hurt the poor 
people in those countries by depriving them of the availability of food 
and medicine.
  We have also got to look at the regulatory situation we have in 
agriculture. As someone who lives on a farm, I understand that in 
northwest Iowa we have a lot of flat lands, they call them prairie 
potholes, and yet the bureaucrats here in Washington somehow believe 
that that is wetlands like they would envision them to be along the 
coast of the United States. It is not. We may have an eighth of an acre 
in the middle of a 240-acre field, and somehow that has to be 
protected, yet it is farmed every year anyway.
  We have somehow got to make a determination in agriculture who has 
jurisdiction. Farmers have to deal with four Federal agencies today as 
far as wetlands regulations: USDA, Fish and Wildlife, the Army Corps of 
Engineers, and the EPA; and it is simply not working. They never get a 
straight answer from anyone.
  So, Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of things that need to be done, we 
have to look at policy down the road, but again this bill is an 
appropriations bill. I think with the dollars we were given, the 
chairman did a fantastic job. And I also want to compliment the ranking 
member, who is not here, but compliment her also for the great 
cooperation. It is a real honor and privilege to serve on this 
subcommittee.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Boyd

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Boyd:
       Page 96, after line 4, insert the following:
       Sec. 753. None of the funds made available in this Act or 
     in any other Act may be used to recover part or all of any 
     payment erroneously made to any oyster fisherman in the State 
     of Connecticut for oyster losses under the program 
     established under section 1102(b) of the Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained in section 
     101(a) of Division A of the Omnibus Consolidated and 
     Emergency Supplemental Approprations Act, 1999 (Public Law 
     105-277)), and the regulations issued pursuant to such 
     section 1102(b).

  Mr. BOYD (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 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment to right a 
wrong against the oyster harvesters of Connecticut.
  This amendment would ensure that no funds would be used to force 
these men and women to return vital disaster aid back to USDA. Three 
years

[[Page 13588]]

ago, the oyster fishermen who work the Long Island Sound and their 
families faced tough times. By the fall of 1998, over 95 percent of the 
oysters on 1,750 acres of oyster beds had died, devastating the $62 
million industry and the families that relied on it for survival.
  The USDA provided $1.5 million in disaster assistance last year to 
help get these families through the crisis and to ensure the long-time 
survival of Connecticut's valuable oyster industry. It was the right 
thing to do. It helped these small businesses get through tough times. 
The oystermen thought that they had weathered the storm.
  But after surviving the crisis, just a few weeks ago the oyster 
harvesters got a letter in the mail from the USDA saying it was sorry, 
it made a mistake, and it wanted its money back; it wanted the $1.5 
million returned. That money that was invested in reseeding oyster beds 
so that there would be an oyster harvest in the future, and it went to 
pay mortgages, to repair boats, and to feed and educate children.
  Mr. Chairman, these are not people that have $1.5 million to give 
back to the Department of Agriculture. They should not be forced to 
mortgage their homes and futures to pay for a bureaucratic mistake.
  My amendment would simply prohibit any funds made available in this 
act or in any other act from being used to recover part or all of any 
payment erroneously made to any Connecticut oyster harvester for oyster 
losses in 1998.
  CBO has ruled it as budget neutral, taking no essential funds out of 
this bill. I call on my colleagues to support the amendment and bring 
justice home to the oyster harvesters of Connecticut.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I accept the gentleman's amendment and recommend that 
the House do so as well.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Coburn

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

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Coburn:
       Insert before the short title the following title:

                TITLE IX--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 901. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Food and Drug Administration for the testing, 
     development, or approval (including approval of production, 
     manufacturing, or distribution) of any drug solely intended 
     for the chemical inducement of abortion.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, we have addressed this amendment 2 years 
prior to now, and we have passed it each year in the House.
  What this amendment does is limit and prohibit the use of funds by 
the Food and Drug Administration in approving any drug that's sole 
intended purpose is the chemical inducement of an abortion.
  Why is this important? First of all, if we go and look at the 
authorizing language to the Food and Drug Administration what we will 
find is that, in fact, its charge and its mission is to provide safety 
and efficacy for life and health. There is nothing about the chemical 
inducement of an abortion that is safe, either for the mother or for 
the unborn child. The other reason that this is important is that it 
violates the very premise under which the FDA was authorized.
  What this amendment would do is it would limit the expenditure of 
Federal funds by the Food and Drug Administration in their efforts to 
approve drugs whose sole purpose is to terminate life, to take the life 
of an unborn child.
  One of the things that has come to light over the last 3 years that 
now cannot be disputed scientifically is that we have an ever enlarging 
number of women who encounter breast cancer. And although it is not 
politically correct in our culture today, the fact is that having an 
abortion markedly increases one's risk for breast cancer. There are now 
10 out of 11 studies that prove that without a shadow of a doubt. An 
analysis of all those studies combined, plus other studies, show that 
there is a 30 percent increase in the risk for breast cancer.
  We have funded through this Congress and many others marked research 
in breast cancer. We just passed a breast cancer and cervical cancer 
bill through this House with the whole goal to extend the life of these 
women. It would seem fitting to me that we would not want to allow the 
FDA to go down a course in which their whole intended purpose is to 
take the life of the unborn child.
  The other thing that is important in this is that drugs that are 
intended solely for this purpose are intended so to take the life of a 
child under 9 weeks of age. We also have irrefutable evidence that now 
an unborn child at 19 days post conception has a heartbeat, and at 41 
days post conception has brain waves.
  If we look at our definition of death in this country and we say that 
the absence of brain waves and the absence of a heartbeat is death, 
then certainly the opposite of that is life. So what we are talking 
about is taking unborn life. Whether we fight about when life begins or 
not, we know it is present at 41 days. So we are talking about 
authorizing an agency of the Federal Government to figure out how best 
to provide a drug to take that life.

                              {time}  1700

  That is not what this country is about, it is not what this bill 
should be about, and I would ask that the Members support this 
amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today, once again, in 
opposition to the Coburn Amendment that would limit FDA testing on the 
drug Mifepristone or RU-486. As Congressman Coburn has tried year after 
year, this amendment, as drafted, would limit FDA testing on any drug 
that might induce miscarriage, including drugs that treat cancer, 
ulcers and rheumatoid arthritis.
  Although this debate is truly about the FDA's ability to test, 
research and approve any drug based on sound scientific evidence, I 
find this continual assault on a women's choice and right to control 
her body frustrating, to put it lightly.
  Just yesterday, the Supreme Court upheld a woman's right to choose 
whether or not an abortion is right for her, without the State enacting 
undue restrictions. By ruling the Nebraska ``partial birth'' ban 
unconstitutional, the Court reiterated that Roe v. Wade is still the 
law of the land and cannot be undermined with ambiguous anti-abortion 
language.
  The Supreme Court's decision spotlights the judicial branch's role in 
protecting and preserving the reproductive rights of American women as 
the Constitution provided. In a similar vein, the Federal Drug 
Administration is charged with determining whether a drug is safe and 
effective without political interference. However, Mr. Coburn's 
Amendment would interject politics into this process with no regard to 
the health and well being of women in the country.
  Mifepristone is a proven safe drug that has been used in France since 
1988 after the French Minister of Health declared Ru-486 ``the moral 
property of women,'' thus showing the enlightened state of affairs in 
France that continues to elude this country.
  However, Mifespristone has continually satisfied the FDA's safety 
requirement in 1996 based on clinical trials and after two favorable 
letters it is expected to receive final approval soon.
  Although Mifepristone was developed as a drug that induces chemical 
miscarriage, I am more concerned about its other potential uses in 
treating conditions such as infertility, ectopic pregnancy, 
endometriosis, uterine fibroids and breast cancer.
  The problem with characterizing this amendment as an abortion drug is 
that Mifepristone has the potential for so many other uses. Thus if we 
only highlight one use of Mifepristone, then we might as well do the 
same for chemotherapy drugs which can also cause miscarriage.
  Yet, because of the FDA's arduous approval process, many drugs have 
been found to be safe and effective, notwithstanding their potential 
usefulness in inducing miscarriage.
  Thus, if we go by the Coburn standard, most of these drugs would have 
not been developed, and future drugs may be jeopardized. Research of 
potential treatments for each of these conditions is crucial to women's 
health. Controversy concerning this particular drug should not be a 
barrier to treatment.
  Science should dictate what drugs are approved by the FDA, not 
politics. Congress has

[[Page 13589]]

never instructed the FDA to approve or disapprove a drug. The FDA 
protocol for drug approval depends upon rigorous and objective 
scientific evaluation of a drug's safety. Ultimately, this is a 
decision that should be made by the researchers and doctors.
  This amendment could jeopardize the integrity of the FDA approval 
process. Under this process, a company that wants to begin clinical 
trials on a new drug must submit an application for FDA approval. If 
that application has not been approved within 30 days, the company may 
move forward.
  This amendment would prevent the FDA from reviewing any application 
for a drug that might induce miscarriage. No funds would be available 
for the FDA to even oversee any trials.
  Therefore, I urge my Colleagues to oppose this amendment. We cannot 
afford to inhibit research on certain health conditions based upon the 
controversy of the particular drug. We also cannot allow the FDA to be 
limited in its ability to approve drugs based on politics.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Coburn 
amendment.
  Since being elected to Congress eight years ago, I have been working 
with many of my colleagues for the right of all women in the United 
States to have safe, healthy alternatives to surgical abortions.
  While we've seen RU-486 become available in Europe, we're still 
fighting for expanded research, development, and availability of drugs 
for medical abortions, like RU-486, here in the United States.
  Even worse, in Congress we continue to face these outrageous efforts 
by the far right to block the Food and Drug Administration's approval 
of RU-486.
  I'm sad to say it, but the Coburn amendment is the same attack that 
conservatives have tried every year.
  Mr. Chairman, pure and simple, the Coburn amendment is an attack on a 
woman's right to make decisions that affect her health.
  It seeks to deny a woman's right to safe medicines like RU-486 even 
when faced with a crisis pregnancy.
  Furthermore, I ask my colleagues to realize that by prohibiting the 
FDA from approving these medicines--This amendment will also have a 
life-threatening impact on other women and men.
  It harms those who have medical conditions, such as tumors, that can 
be treated with drugs like RU-486.
  We cannot let the far right stand in the way of women's health or 
patients' lives.
  I urge my colleagues--vote against the Coburn amendment!
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about the 
implications on research if this amendment passes. Scientific study and 
preliminary evidence show Mifepristone (RU-486) has significant promise 
for the treatment of: Breast Cancer, Ovarian Cancer, Prostate Cancer, 
Cushing's Disease (a Pituitary Gland Disorder), Meningioma (benign 
brain tumors), and Ectopic Pregnancy.
  If we block the FDA from testing or approving mifepristone, we may be 
penalizing thousands of Americans who have nothing to do with the 
abortion issue.
  I feel this vote has greater ramifications than just abortion.
  I am also concerned about preserving the scientific integrity of the 
FDA's drug approval process.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 538, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


                 Amendment No. 47 Offered by Mr. Royce

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

       Amendment No. 47 offered by Mr. Royce:
       Page 96, after line 7, insert the following:

                TITLE IX--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

     SEC. 901. ACROSS-THE-BOARD PERCENTAGE REDUCTION.

       Each amount appropriated or otherwise made available by 
     this Act that is not required to be appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by a provision of law is hereby reduced by one 
     percent.

  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I realize that this year's agricultural 
appropriations bill is below last year's level, and I applaud the 
chairman for his efforts on that. However, even more reductions can be 
made in this bill, and should be made, because, frankly, Congress 
should continue to cut government waste.
  Just a few weeks ago, the President signed into law a $15.3 billion 
crop insurance and emergency farm package. That measure marks the third 
big bill out of the agricultural economy in the last 3 years.
  Now, this emergency bill amounts to a mini-farm bill affecting most 
divisions of the agricultural department and sprinkling pet programs to 
special interest groups. In effect, Congress has been passing more than 
one agricultural appropriations bill each year; we have been passing 
two.
  In fiscal year 1999, Congress passed $6.6 billion in supplemental 
assistance. So far in fiscal year 2000, Congress has passed four 
different measures amounting to $15 billion in emergency agricultural 
spending, and this includes the $210 million of emergency spending 
attached to the military construction supplemental passed by this House 
just before the July 4th recess. Not even into fiscal year 2001 yet, 
Congress has already passed $1.6 billion in emergency funding.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress cannot afford to past two appropriations bills 
for agriculture each and every year.
  Since late 1998, Congress has allotted $22 billion in disaster market 
loss payments to growers, roughly doubling the subsidies promised under 
the 1996 Freedom to Farm law. Lawmakers are beginning to use this 
annual ritual of emergency packages as their vehicle of choice for 
moving pet projects.
  Under the guise of a national emergency, Congress rams through 
emergency spending bills full of unnecessary, unwanted, unauthorized, 
unmitigated pork. The emergency package for Colombia-Kosovo and 
disaster relief included millions for a Coast Guard jet, for instance, 
for Alaska. It included money for an ice breaker and other egregious 
pork. If we do not cut back now, our senior citizens will pay the bills 
when Medicare or Social Security runs dry, and that is not a legacy any 
one of us wants to live with.
  The Department of Agriculture in its current configuration still 
reflects the needs of an America that existed prior to the industrial 
revolution. These Depression-era programs still work to prop up 
commodity prices.
  Most agriculture spending aimed at farmers is based on a restrictive 
centralized planning system. Sixty percent of farm payments goes to 15 
percent of the farmers with gross sales in excess of $100,000. Very 
little of these price supports goes to those who really need it, the 
small family farmers.
  Attempts to manipulate markets and subsidize the economic life of a 
group of businessmen only harm consumers and farmers. Programs 
dedicated to agriculture comprise 34 percent of the Department's 
budget. The remainder goes to forestry, rural development, and welfare.
  Back in 1862, when Abraham Lincoln created this agency, five out of 
10 American workers were employed in agriculture. Well, that is no 
longer the case today; yet the Agriculture Department is the fourth 
largest agency in the President's cabinet, behind Defense, Veterans and 
Treasury. There is now about one bureaucrat for every six full-time 
farmers, and not a single one of these bureaucrats helps crops grow.
  I support a gradual and consistent reduction in this appropriations 
bill. We have made progress in the 1996 reforms, but we need to do 
more; and we need to ensure that these reforms stay put. We must 
continue to wean agricultural special interests from their dependence 
on the Federal Government.
  My amendment is supported by Citizens Against Government Waste. A 1 
percent across-the-board reduction will save American taxpayers $750 
million next year alone. It is my hope that this money will go to debt 
reduction.
  Again, the chairman has done an admirable job, but more can be done; 
and saving one penny on every dollar is the very least we can do. I 
urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

[[Page 13590]]


  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the process associated with the appropriation is long. 
It includes oversight hearings and evaluations of many proposals. The 
subcommittee reviewed detailed budget requests and asked several 
thousand questions for the record. In addition, the subcommittee 
received over 2,900 individual requests for spending considerations 
from Members of the House.
  The funding presented in this year's bill represents the culmination 
of many months of work by the subcommittee. The gentleman has not been 
specifically involved in the process.
  The gentleman's amendment moves to arbitrarily cut funding without 
any consideration to the merit or value of the needs facing American 
agriculture. This approach ignores the methodical process that the 
committee used to fund the line items in this bill.
  If the gentleman were truly interested in reducing the bill in a 
logical manner, he would identify the specific programs and accounts 
that should be reduced with his amendment. Then we could have a 
valuable debate on the individual merits of the funding proposal. But 
the gentleman's amendment simply employs the Draconian reduction 
approach to the discretionary portion of the bill, with little 
understanding as to its negative impact on vital programs funded by 
this bill.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is one of the best substitutes for 
thinking that I have seen on the floor in quite some time. The 
gentleman has given as one of his reasons for proposing this 1 percent 
cut the fact that he does not like the fact that there are some 
agriculture commodity supplementals that have been passed by the 
Congress. The fact is, those are not in this bill. They do not have 
diddly to do with this bill. They ought to be in this bill, because, I 
promise you, before the Congress is finished, it will respond to the 
problem on the farm with respect to prices.
  The Senate has already passed $1.2 billion in additional assistance 
to farmers who are being crippled by low prices, thanks to the 
spectacular failure of the Freedom to Farm Act; and before this bill is 
finished, the House will have to accept some of what the Senate is 
talking about with respect to dairy funding, with respect to livestock 
funding and the rest.
  But the fact is, right now the bill the gentleman is trying to cut 
does not contain those items, and because he does not like the fact 
that somewhere along the line those items might be funded, he 
apparently is willing to cut funding for child nutrition, to cut 
funding for agencies that protect the public against diseased food and 
items like that.
  The gentleman would cut the regulation and safety of drugs and 
medical devices by FDA, he would cut rural water and sewer and housing 
and economic development, he would cut vital conservation programs on 
the farm, he would cut the APHIS program to help control plant and 
animal pests and diseases.
  I just went through several national forests over the past 2 weeks 
and saw the incredible damage done to those forests by pests. In fact, 
I saw some spectacular damage in California. I would ask the gentleman 
whether he believes that pest control programs in California are really 
a waste of the taxpayers' money or not. It is destroying the timber 
harvests, it is destroying agricultural products of all kind, and, 
whether the gentleman recognizes it or not, forests are an agricultural 
product. At least they are seen that way by a lot of people who harvest 
forests for a living.
  I would say that if the gentleman is comfortable in cutting USDA's 
Food Safety and Inspection Service, which is responsible for the 
inspection of meat and poultry, he may be comfortable doing that. I am 
not. If the gentleman is comfortable saying that 74,000 fewer low-
income pregnant women and children will be served by the WIC program, 
he may be comfortable with that. I am not.
  Mr. Chairman, with that, I think we ought to just let the chips fall 
where they may. I intend to oppose the amendment, and I would hope that 
other thoughtful Members of the House would as well.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and to just 
maybe clarify some of the statements made earlier.
  The funding that was put in the supplemental was for hurricane 
damage. These are real emergencies. It has gone on now about a year, 
and without a vehicle to help the people out there that were so 
devastated last year.
  I just want to remind the House also, the $15 billion bill that went 
through, that is spread out. The crop insurance portion of it is spread 
out over 5 years, and the intention is to have a crop insurance program 
in place policy-wise and funding-wise that is going to actually help 
farmers manage risk.
  I think we have an extremely good product, and farmers will now have 
a vehicle where they can insure both price and yield risk, and 
hopefully the dependency for additional supplementals will be curbed 
dramatically in the future with that type of program in place. Also for 
livestock producers, it has a plan in there so that they can also cover 
both fatality and price risk.
  So while I do not disagree with the intention of the gentleman, I 
think that we need to maintain fiscal sanity around here, but I have 
also heard over the 3 days of debate on this bill how this bill is 
currently underfunded to begin with. I think, like the gentleman from 
Wisconsin said, there are very vital services that are in this bill 
that would be dramatically harmed and programs that would be 
dramatically harmed with this type of cut.
  I will say in reference to concern about the current farm policy that 
I do not know how one can say that our current farm bill really is 
responsible for the Asian financial collapse, where most of our major 
customers of the world have not been able to buy our products in the 
past few years. Fortunately, the economy in those areas is rebounding. 
Hopefully, the future will be better. I do not know how one can say 
anything about farm policy being the cause for 3 years of record 
worldwide production and surpluses. That simply is not the cause of 
what the price situation is as far as our grains are concerned, 
certainly.
  Also when one looks at what our export policy is with the embargoes 
that we have on 40 percent of the world's population today, they are 
totally wrong and also have a great effect as far as the prices we see 
in agriculture.
  So while I will match my record with anyone as far as being fiscally 
responsible here, I think this is ill conceived, will do a great amount 
of damage, and I would certainly hope that the House would reject it.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LATHAM. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, the point I want to make to the House and 
the point I would like to make to the gentleman is that the actual 
economic loss from the weather-related disasters that the gentleman has 
cited was $1.5 billion. Congress responded to this by adding $4.2 
billion in emergency disaster relief. This is the impulse that I am 
trying to check with this amendment, to cut 1 percent, because I think 
this has been the response; and it has been overly generous in terms of 
what it has done with the taxpayers' funds.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I agree with the 
gentleman that the problem was at that time that not all of the losses 
in the agriculture sector were known. If we talk to the Members from 
North Carolina, from the South who were dramatically affected, there 
are additional costs, and I think there was $210 million in the 
supplemental to address those issues that were not addressed 
previously.

[[Page 13591]]

  Again, I agree with the gentleman that we have to make sure that we 
keep a handle on spending, but certainly there was a real emergency and 
there continues to be because a lot of needs were not addressed 
previously.
  So I appreciate the gentleman's comments.
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I also want to stand in opposition to the gentleman 
from California's amendment. I would agree with the gentleman that ad 
hoc disaster assistance payments on an annual or even sometimes more 
than an annual basis is not the way to run a good railroad here. I 
think the reason we have had to do that is because we have had a failed 
national agricultural policy called Freedom to Farm.
  However, the gentleman's amendment does not deal with that problem; 
what his amendment does is go after such programs as Federal food 
safety programs, the APHIS programs which control the pests and 
diseases which we have all talked about here in the last month or two, 
such things as plum pox and citrus canker and glassy wing sharpshooter, 
and all of those sorts of invasive pests that come from other countries 
which the APHIS has the responsibility of keeping out of this country.
  The regulation of safety and drugs and medical devices by the FDA 
would be cut by this gentleman's amendment; nutrition programs for 
children and the elderly; housing, water and sewer, and economic 
development programs available in rural and small town America; 
conservation programs of vital importance; those are the programs that 
the amendment cuts.
  So I would implore the gentleman from California, Mr. Chairman. If he 
would like to work with us on improving the national agricultural 
policy of this Nation, I would very much like to do that, but I do not 
believe that this amendment is the right way to go, and I urge its 
defeat.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California is rightly concerned 
about expenditures growing. I have mixed emotions on how to cut Federal 
spending.
  In this case, if I could call on the gentleman from California, I 
would inquire, does he have an idea of the millions of dollars that 
this is going to cut from some important programs. The answer is 
roughly $145 million. $145 million that is going to come out of the 
Food and Drug Administration, that is going to come from food safety 
programs, that is going to come out of reductions to the farm service 
agencies that already are having difficulty serving farmers like they 
should. All the regulations that we have developed in this country are 
now overwhelming those county offices. So I am particularly concerned 
about the ability of farmers to receive help in keeping up with all of 
the rules and the regulations. This amendment would cut other farmer 
assistance programs.
  Mr. Chairman, we are faced with a serious situation where other 
countries of the world are helping and subsidizing their farmers 5 
times as much as we are; for example, in Europe. So how, when they 
subsidize their farmers to that level, can we cut spending, even by the 
one percent suggested.
  We are going to have to make a decision. Do we want to keep 
agricultural production and the agriculture industry in this country 
alive and well, or are we going to let that industry fade. I say that 
we better think very carefully, not just this Congress, but the 
American people better think very carefully about whether we want to 
produce our own food and fiber in this country; whether we want to know 
that it is produced in a safe way; whether we want the freshness and 
reliable supply.
  In this case, I speak very strongly against the amendment. We do need 
to increase the efficiency of U.S. Department of Agriculture 
operations, however it is a disservice to farmers to take $145 million 
out of the discretionary spending of the agriculture budget.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 538, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 36 Offered by Mr. Crowley

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

       Amendment No. 36 offered by Mr. Crowley:
       Insert before the short title the following title:

                TITLE IX--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 901. None of the amounts made available in this Act 
     for the Food and Drug Administration may be expended to 
     enforce or otherwise carry out section 801(d)(1) of the 
     Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) reserves a 
point of order.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, working with the House 
Committee on Government Reform's minority office and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman), the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and 
myself conducted a study of the cost that seniors in our congressional 
districts pay for their prescription drugs versus the cost paid by 
their counterparts in Canada and Mexico for the exact same drugs. Both 
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and I were startled by the 
results, to say the least.
  We found that seniors in our districts in New York pay, on average, 
91 percent more than seniors in Canada and 89 percent more than seniors 
in Mexico for the exact same drugs; twice as much for the exact same 
drugs, same dosage, same in every way, expect price. We did not study 
arcane drugs not used in the real world to skew our data, but rather 
the 5 most popular prescription drugs sold to seniors in the U.S. 
today: Zocor, Prilosec, Procardia, Zoloft, and Norvasc.
  Let me put it in perspective. I have a constituent in Long Island 
City, New York who has to purchase 100 capsules of Prilosec every 3 
months for his wife. He pays almost $400 for these drugs. I have a 
letter from the gentleman who writes, ``Isn't it an outrage for us to 
pay this price for medication my wife will have to take on a regular 
basis.''
  Well, my answer to that gentleman is yes, it is an outrage, 
especially in light of the fact that this same drug that costs $400 in 
Queens, New York would have cost him $107 in Mexico and $184 in Canada.
  Similar results were borne out by a number of other studies conducted 
throughout the United States, studies which mirrored the results that 
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and I saw in our respective 
districts. But if my constituent or any American went to Mexico or 
Canada to buy this drug and tried to bring them back over the border 
into the United States, he or she would be committing a Federal crime 
and could theoretically be punished for that crime.
  The only thing criminal I see are these extremely high prices that 
they are forced to pay for drugs in the United States. Mr. Chairman, 
$400 for Prilosec, a drug that was researched, patented and 
manufactured here in the United States. It begs the question, Mr. 
Chairman: why is Prilosec cheaper in Canada and Mexico than here in the 
United States where it was made and developed in the first place? It is 
because in the United States the major drug manufacturers practice 
price discrimination whereby they charge those least able to pay, such 
as seniors on a fixed income, more for their medications than they 
charge others such as HMOs and large hospitals, that enjoy sweetheart 
deals with the drug manufacturers.

[[Page 13592]]

  Price discrimination is illegal in Canada and in Mexico. That is why 
I am offering this amendment today, to highlight the practice of price 
discrimination by the pharmaceutical industry that is being used 
against millions of American seniors who need prescription drug 
medication. More simply put, Mr. Chairman, Americans are being gouged 
by the American pharmaceutical industry.
  I go about trying to stop this practice of price discrimination by 
prohibiting funding to enforce Section 801(d)(1) of the Federal Food, 
Drug and Cosmetic Act. Currently, this section of Federal law restricts 
the rights of an individual to cross across international borders to 
purchase one's prescription drugs. This amendment will not only allow 
border residents to travel, but also force this Congress to confront 
and stop the practice of price discrimination in the pharmaceutical 
industry.
  Mr. Chairman, I hear from my constituents all the time about the high 
cost paid by them for medications. That further reinforces my 
determination for this Congress to pass legislation mandating the 
inclusion of a prescription drug benefit under the Medicare program. 
Unfortunately, the seniors of America did not get that before the 
recess, despite all of the rhetoric from the other side of the aisle.
  So I offer this amendment as a first step towards the assistance of 
America's seniors. Prescription drug medications are not a luxury, they 
are a necessity. Sometimes we forget that here as we enjoy our generous 
taxpayer-subsidized, top-of-the-line health insurance.
  Let me make clear what my amendment will and will not do so as not to 
confuse the debate. It will decriminalize seniors who must travel south 
of the border to purchase their prescription drugs. It will highlight 
the fact that seniors in America are the continued victims of price 
discrimination which this GOP-controlled Congress continues to ignore. 
It will continue to prohibit the importation in the United States of 
non FDA-approved drugs that could be dangerous.
  This amendment does not weaken inspection standards for the 
importation of foreign-made drugs into the U.S. At no time does this 
amendment change the existing Federal regulations regarding the 
importation of foreign manufactured drugs into the U.S. This amendment 
will not weaken the ability of our government to inspect and seize 
illegal narcotics being brought into the United States.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) insist 
on his point of order?
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of a point of 
order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's reservation of a point of order is 
withdrawn.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Although it is well-intentioned, this amendment will go far beyond 
its stated purpose. The amendment would eliminate the ability of the 
Food and Drug Administration to trace a drug back to the original 
manufacturer. It is in opposition to the intention of Congress as 
expressed in the Prescription Drug Marketing Act of 1987 and, most 
significantly, this amendment may harm the very people the gentleman 
intends to help.
  The amendment assumes that all drugs with the same name are, in fact, 
the same. Let me assure my colleagues that this is not the case when 
dealing with imported drugs. There are many ways in which a drug may 
differ from one that one would pick up at one's pharmacy. Drugs that 
look legitimate may be counterfeit, sub-potent or contaminated. There 
is a great profit, and great potential harm, in counterfeit drugs. This 
amendment would severely hamper the efforts of the Food and Drug 
Administration inspectors to stop counterfeit drugs.
  The amendment further assumes that drug regulation in other countries 
brings the same measure of safety that drug regulation in the United 
States brings. This is a false assumption. There is a reason that U.S. 
drug approval is considered the ``gold standard.'' The FDA scientists 
inspect all manufacturing facilities and set standards for storage and 
handling of the drug. There is great variability in the quality 
controls on manufacturing throughout the world. It seems absurd that 
without any FDA inspection, consumers would take complex drugs made in 
countries in which they would not drink the water.
  The amendment takes a shotgun approach to a very specific economic 
problem. It is not a solution that gives priority to people's health. 
In fact, it puts their health at risk. Is it fair for certain members 
of society, because of economic concerns, to have a lesser assurance of 
drug safety? Taking risks with drugs is not the way to solve an 
economic problem.
  I would encourage my colleagues to address those concerns in other 
prescription drug discussions, and not in this bill.

                              {time}  1730

  When we take medication and are confident in its safe and effective 
use, we have the regulatory system that we have created to thank. I 
urge Members to keep the system strong and fair for all Americans by 
voting no on this amendment.
  Mr. COBURN. I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for this amendment. I believe 
the gentleman from New York has hit on an issue that we talked about 
during the prescription drug debate.
  I want to carry it a little further. The drug that he utilized, one 
of those, is Prilosec. There are three drugs on the market to compete 
with that in the United States. They all do essentially the same thing. 
Prilosec is about to go off patent. It is a $5.9 billion per year drug, 
per year.
  Of the two drugs that have come to market to compete with it, they 
are priced exactly the same. To me, that smells like no competition, it 
smells like a wink and a nod. Why, in a market that is a $6 billion 
market, would there not be any price competition for a drug that does 
essentially the same thing?
  I believe there may be some legitimate concerns about minimal 
packaging or safety, but the thing we need to remember is that this 
amendment is directed towards drugs made in this country, shipped to 
Canada and then come back, or into Mexico and then come back. So these 
are drugs that have already been licensed, they have been manufactured 
in an FDA facility, and in fact they should be, under NAFTA, readily 
coming across our border without any inhibition whatever if there is a 
bona fide prescription for that drug in this country.
  We have a crisis in prescription drugs, but it is not a crisis in 
Medicare, it is a crisis in price. The reason we have the crisis in 
price is there is not adequate competition in the pharmaceutical 
industry.
  I would direct the Members of this body to go to the FTC's website 
where they have identified four manufacturers over the last year 
raising the cost for prescription drugs close to $1 billion on four 
separate drugs because they colluded with people to not bring other 
drugs to market. They were actually paying their competitors not to 
bring drugs to market.
  So I believe the gentleman from New York has a wonderful idea. I 
believe it is an appropriate idea. I think the safety concerns are a 
red herring. There are not the safety concerns because they are 
actually manufactured in this country. The FDA will not have any 
limitations on it.
  As far as traceability, we are going to be able to trace these drugs 
like any other drug. They are not going to be allowed to be sold in 
Canada with a prescription unless we can trace it and keep a record, 
just as in this country. There will be completely the same types of 
regulations in terms of pharmaceuticals.
  As a practicing physician that sees that people cannot afford their 
medicines today, we have to do something. The first thing we need to do 
is to start competition. If the Justice Department is not going to 
investigate the pharmaceutical industry, we should be doing this and 
passing this amendment.

[[Page 13593]]


  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I will certainly support this amendment, but I must say 
that I will be amused to see those persons in this Chamber who will 
today vote for this amendment who just a short time ago voted to 
prevent us from being able to directly attack the problem of pricing 
for prescription drugs.
  The fact is if this amendment passes what we will be saying is that, 
for instance, American senior citizens will not have to worry about 
whether they are being penalized when they go to Canada to buy drugs 
that are cheaper than they would be if they bought the very same brand 
name product in the United States.
  To me, if this House wants to do something really significant, it 
would pass the Allen bill, which would simply require that in addition 
to providing a prescription drug benefit for all seniors under 
Medicare, that it would also guarantee that Medicare would be able to 
assure that drug prices charged to Medicare and to senior citizens 
under Medicare would have to be at the same lower price that drug 
companies make available their products to their most favored volume 
customers. That is what we really ought to do.
  This amendment goes as far as it can go, but I would say that I do 
not think seniors should be fooled that they have gotten much help from 
folks who vote for this amendment who last week voted against our being 
able to expand Medicare coverage for every single American, and, for 
that matter, to attack the price issue at the same time.
  Senior citizens should not have to leave America in order to be 
treated like Americans. They ought to be able to get the right 
treatment here at home, and they would if this Congress had guts enough 
to take on the pharmaceutical industry. It does not, so I guess this is 
the best we are able to do under the circumstances.
  That is not the fault of the gentleman who offers the amendment, but 
it is the fault of every other Member of this House who chose last week 
to make a decision that prevented us from providing real direct help to 
seniors on the issue of prescription drug price. I do not think that 
many seniors are going to be fooled by people who will cast that vote 
last week and then run to embrace this amendment this week. I think 
they will recognize tokenism when they see it.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, as well. It 
is really critical that we do something about the discrepancy in prices 
of prescription drugs in Mexico, Canada, and even in Europe as far as 
the prices that our senior citizens in rural Missouri are getting. We 
do not live close to any of the borders, just like the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Crowley) said.
  However, I have got more constituents than I can mention, and one 
comes to mind whose son has a very severe case of epilepsy. The only 
way she can afford the epilepsy medicine is to go to Canada to get it. 
It is a big problem because she is always scared of being punished by 
this government for having to do that, but she wants her son to be 
well, and she otherwise could not afford the drugs. So this is very 
important.
  This is very similar to the legislation that the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Berry), the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and I 
introduced, the International Prescription Drug Parity Act, which would 
allow wholesalers, distributors, and pharmacists to reimport drugs back 
into the United States, subject to FDA safety regulations. It is very 
important because we must deal with the issue of price before we deal 
with the issue of prescription drug coverage. I think most people would 
agree with that.
  I do, however, want to ask the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) 
a couple of things, particularly with regard to the safety factor, 
because I cannot tell from the way his amendment is written if it is as 
tough with regard to safety as our legislation is.
  Would the gentleman tell me about how the FDA would oversee or 
regulate the drugs that are reimported back into the United States, if 
he would?
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. EMERSON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. This 
will not weaken the inspection standards for the importation of 
foreign-made drugs into the United States.
  I understand the Committee on Commerce held hearings last month in 
June to address the concerns that the FDA had only inspected 25 percent 
of foreign drug manufacturers who brought medications by import into 
the United States.
  My amendment will not weaken the FDA here at all, or even hamper 
their inspection services with regard to the foreign-made drugs being 
imported into the U.S. My amendment deals only with the reimportation, 
reimportation of American-made FDA-approved drugs back into the United 
States.
  In fact, by taking the FDA out of the business of harassing seniors, 
the FDA might be able to free up additional resources to make sure what 
is being firsthand imported into America from abroad is safe for human 
consumption.
  Additionally, by striking funding from the statute, we will not be 
opening up the borders for a free flow of non-FDA imported drugs to be 
brought into the United States. Section 21 of the U.S. Code states that 
it is illegal to bring non-FDA-approved drugs into the U.S.
  My amendment does not change that law in any way. In fact, I 
understand why Section 801(d)1 was added to the law. Unfortunately, as 
of late, its interpretation has not been used to protect American 
consumers, but rather, large drug manufacturers, instead.
  Mrs. EMERSON. I commend the gentleman and appreciate very much his 
explanation of the whole issue of safety, because we have got to get a 
handle on this issue once and for all, and I cannot bear to tell my 
constituents one more time that if they go to Canada or if they go to 
Mexico, they can get this drug for one-third to two-thirds less than 
they would pay here.
  It is not fair for those people, and it is not fair that our American 
consumers are subsidizing the rest of the world. I thank the gentleman 
and I urge, again, strong support for this amendment.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Last week the 
House did take some action late one night, I think Thursday night or 
1\1/2\ weeks ago, that will begin to open this door. But this issue 
needs to be talked about a lot by this Congress.
  I have a chart here which sort of demonstrates the problem. Many of 
us in the last week have had town hall meetings back in our districts 
or have met with senior citizens. We had one in my district, and I 
learned or relearned what we have been hearing before.
  That is one example of one of my constituents who was traveling in 
Europe. Her traveling partner needed to get a prescription refilled. 
The prescription here in the United States is $120. The price of having 
that prescription filled in Europe for the same drug made in the same 
plant by the same company under the same FDA approval was $32.
  This person has to take that drug, has to have it refilled every 
month, so the savings of about $90 a month times 12 works out to about 
$1,000 a year. The differences between what Americans pay and what the 
rest of the world pays for the same drugs is just outrageous.
  Let us take a drug like Coumadin. My 82-year-old father takes 
Coumadin. It is a blood thinner, a very commonly prescribed drug. Here 
in the United States, the average price is about $30.25 for a 30-day 
supply. That same drug made in the same plant by the same company under 
the same FDA approval in Europe sells for only $2.85.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a serious problem right now. Part of the problem 
is that Americans are paying a disproportionate share of the cost for 
research

[[Page 13594]]

and ultimately I think a disproportionate share of the profits for the 
large pharmaceutical companies.
  It would be easy for us as a Congress to sit here and blame the 
pharmaceutical companies and say, shame on them. But the truth of the 
matter is that it is shame on us. It is shame on us for allowing this 
to continue. It is shame on our own FDA because, in view of these huge 
differentials, we would think that the FDA would be doing something to 
help senior citizens and other American consumers.
  The fact of the matter is that our own FDA is making matters worse. 
These are excerpts from an actual letter sent to a senior citizen, a 
very threatening letter that in effect says if they continue to do 
this, we believe they may be in violation of Federal law and we may 
have to come after them.
  If someone is an 82-year-old senior citizen taking Coumadin or 
Synthroid or some of these other commonly-prescribed drugs and trying 
to save some money by getting them either through Mexico, Canada, or 
Europe, the last thing our Federal Government ought to do is threaten 
us, especially when those drugs are absolutely legal, they are FDA-
approved, and the problem is the FDA has put the burden of proof on the 
consumer.
  Finally, I support this legislation or this amendment here today, as 
well, because in many respects our Justice Department has failed, as 
well. It has failed in its oversight responsibilities to make certain 
that there is adequate competition and that there is not collusion 
between the large pharmaceutical companies.
  It is not just shame on the pharmaceutical companies, it is shame on 
us, it is shame on the FDA, it is shame on the Justice Department. It 
is time that this Congress sends a very clear message that the game is 
over. We are not going to continue to subsidize the starving Swiss, we 
are not going to continue to subsidize the rest of the world in terms 
of prescription drugs, especially when our own seniors have to make 
very difficult decisions every day in terms of whether or not they are 
going to get the prescriptions that they need or the food they should 
have.
  That is simply wrong, and we should not allow it to continue. I hope 
we can pass this amendment tonight to send one more clear message to 
the folks at FDA, the folks at Justice, and the people around the world 
that the game is over.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Crowley amendment.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. Chairman, I deeply support the Crowley amendment, and I am glad 
to see that many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle also 
believe that we need to overturn the current FDA prohibition on U.S. 
citizens traveling to other countries to purchase prescription drugs 
manufactured in our country solely for individual use.
  This important amendment is to decriminalize seniors who travel to 
Canada and Mexico for cheaper prescription drugs. I might also add that 
I strongly support the bill put forward by the gentleman from Maine 
(Mr. Allen) which would make seniors the same preferred customers as 
HMOs and also the President's plan to expand Medicare to cover 
prescription drugs.
  These are all important measures, but this is an important amendment 
that addresses the issue of price discrimination being practiced by the 
drug manufacturers today.
  In my home State of New York, breast cancer medications can cost over 
$100 per prescription while they are available in Canada and Mexico to 
their residents for a tenth of that price. Many women in our home State 
and, indeed, across the country are forced to dilute their 
prescriptions that fight breast cancer, to cut their pills in half 
because they cannot afford their prescription drugs in order to get by 
financially. And many in my home State get on the bus every weekend to 
go to Canada to purchase American manufactured drugs because it is 
cheaper than in their own country.
  Mr. Chairman, this is just plain wrong. No doctor recommends it. No 
person deserves this type of treatment. They should be charged, at the 
very least, the same that the foreign governments are charging their 
citizens.
  Recently, I conducted a study on price discrimination on consumers in 
the district that I represent which is Manhattan, East and West side, 
and Astoria, Queens, and compared the prices that were paid by 
consumers in other Nations, Mexico and Canada. I must add I was 
assisted in this by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and the 
staff of the Committee on Government Reform, and what we found was 
absolutely shocking.
  We asked them to look at a total of eight drugs and compared the 
average costs in my district with the average costs paid by consumers 
in Mexico and Canada, and the drugs included in the study were some of 
the most widely prescribed drugs today. To take one example, the breast 
cancer drug Tamoxifen. Tamoxifen is sold under the brand name of 
Nolvadex, and it is the most frequently prescribed breast cancer drug 
in this Nation.
  It is used by thousands of women across my State, across this Nation, 
across the country to treat early and advanced breast cancer. In fact, 
in 1998, the total sales of Tamoxifen were over $520 million. Yet women 
in this country who need Tamoxifen must pay 10 times what seniors in 
Canada pay.
  Our studies showed that a 1-month supply of Tamoxifen costs only $9 
in Canada, yet it costs over $109 in my district. This means that over 
the course of a year, women in my district will pay roughly 1,200 more 
than a woman in Canada. That is a price differential of over 10,000 
percent.
  This is a very important lifesaving drug that thousands of women need 
to survive. It is simply outrageous that drug companies are taking 
advantage of men and women suffering from this horrible disease.
  But Tamoxifen is not the only drug that costs more in New York than 
in Canada and probably every other State in our country. In fact, all 
eight of the drugs which we studied costs at least 40 percent more in 
my district than they do abroad. The average price differential with 
Canada was 112 percent; with Mexico, it was 108 percent.
  Prilosec, which is the top selling drug in the Nation, it is used for 
heartburn and ulcers, in the last 10 years, according to the 
manufacturer, more than 120 million prescriptions have been written for 
this drug, yet seniors and other consumers in my district they have to 
pay over $800 more each year for Prilosec than the consumers in Canada. 
Over $1,000 dollars more than seniors in Mexico.
  Zocor, which is one of the most common cholesterol-reducing drugs in 
this country with over 15 million prescriptions in 1998, costs almost 
three times as much in my district as it does in Canada, and that is a 
difference of over $70 per month.
  I would urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support the Crowley amendment, it is long overdue, and also the Allen 
amendment, the President's plan and others to bring drug fairness into 
this country.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will divide the time evenly between the 
proponent of the amendment and the opponent of the amendment. The 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) and the gentleman from New Mexico 
(Mr. Skeen) each will control 10 minutes.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Crowley) for his leadership on this important issue. We have 
an incredible situation, where those who are least able to pay for the 
important prescription medications that they require, our uninsured 
seniors and uninsured families, in fact, of all ages

[[Page 13595]]

across the country, are asked to pay the highest prices for their 
prescription medications of any place in the entire world.
  This burden has been imposed on those least able to pay and the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) has come forward with a 
constructive proposal that will at least benefit those, who are near 
the Canadian and Mexican borders, since Canada does not impose price 
discrimination.
  I think it is, however, very important to recognize that while Canada 
does not encourage price discrimination, this House has encouraged 
price discrimination. I have on two separate occasions with my 
colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) advanced before 
the Committee on Ways and Means proposals that would permit seniors, 
not just to get on a bus to Canada or Mexico, but would allow them in 
their own neighborhood pharmacy to get prescription medications, as the 
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) has proposed, at the price that the 
pharmaceutical companies make those available to their most favored 
customers.
  Unfortunately, every single Republican on the Committee on Ways and 
Means has joined with the pharmaceutical industry in saying no, in 
saying that it is right to continue charging our seniors, who are 
uninsured, more than anyone else in the world. So I applaud the effort 
of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), but by blocking our 
proposal in committee, by blocking the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) 
when he offered the proposal last week, as Republicans presented not a 
Medicare prescription drug plan, but a political ploy here on the eve 
of the election, seniors have been denied the relief that they so 
desperately need. And this House has been denied the opportunity to 
extend to all Americans what the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) 
would tonight extend at least to those near the Canadian and Mexican 
borders to gain access to bring more reasonably priced medications.
  Last week, I joined with some seniors in central Texas to explore 
this issue of at all places, the Austin Humane Society. I learned 
through a study that we conducted that in this country if you have four 
legs and a tail and need a particular prescription drug, if you can say 
meow or woof or arf, you get a much better deal on prescriptions than 
if you are simply a senior, who is in serious need of medication.
  I know that the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) and others have made 
similar findings in other parts of the country. We demonstrated that on 
one very important arthritis drug, Lodine, for example, that the 
manufacturer is charging 188 percent more to those who would use the 
exact same quality and quantity for animals, for a dog, a cat or a 
horse or a cow, than it does for a senior, who lacks insurance.
  I think that such price discrimination is wrong, the kind of 
discrimination that says it is okay for the same quality and quantity 
and type of drugs for manufacturers price to charge the wholesaler 188 
percent more than for an individual, a senior, who is in need of that 
drug. That is the kind of price discrimination that groups masquerading 
under names like Citizens for Better Medicare, which really is a front 
for the pharmaceutical industry, are imposing on us.
  Tonight the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) proposes that we do 
just a little bit about it, and I encourage the House to adopt his 
approach, but hope that eventually we can move on to a broader proposal 
like that advanced by the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly understand the concerns of my colleague 
from New York (Mr. Crowley), and I do not feel that a restriction on a 
regulatory agency is the way to achieve prescription drug price reform.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Crowley) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to speak in favor of the amendment, and I do 
so with the greatest respect, of course, to the committee upon which I 
serve. But if we look at the seniors who are having to go across the 
border to get prescription drugs and other people who need it, they are 
not doing this because it is convenient, they are not doing it because 
they want to, they are not doing it because they want to support a 
Canadian pharmacy. They are doing it because they have to economically.
  My dad is from Buffalo, New York, and I went to school in Michigan, 
and I know on those border States there is a lot of economic overlap 
and social overlap and everything else, and so for them to go to Canada 
to get cheaper drugs is not that unusual. But then imagine being 82 
years old and getting a letter like this that says, however, future 
shipments of these or similar drugs may be refused admissions; that is 
very disturbing if we have to take something for high cholesterol or 
something for a heart condition. What am I doing?
  These people are World War II veterans. They do not want to go around 
breaking the law, and that is what the implication is from FDA once 
they get it.
  Mr. Chairman, look at these price differences. I think we cannot 
expect people who can save as much as 50 percent on a drug not to take 
advantage of it and to go overseas. But the second question about this 
is why are the drugs so less expensive in Canada than they are here, 
and I think that is where it becomes a universal quest for States that 
are not on the border. I mean, we need to know how come we can get 
Prozac for $18.50 and over here, it is $36. For Claritin, $44 versus 
$8.75. Prilosec, $109 versus $39.25.
  We owe it to our constituents. Even if they are in Iowa, in the 
middle of the country geographically, if we are in a central State, 
domestically, in the United States of America, we would still need to 
know and we need to be able to tell our constituents why these drug 
prices are so different.
  That is why I am supporting this amendment. I think, number one, we 
have to give people on the border States an opportunity; number two, we 
have to explore what are these differences, and this will help promote 
that debate.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Minge).
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that is before us this 
afternoon brings in the sharp relief the anomaly that exists with 
respect to the cost of prescription drugs in North America. It simply 
is unconscionable that if we travel to Mexico or to Canada we can buy 
prescription drugs for dramatically less than we can here within the 
United States.
  It is unacceptable that seniors, who are the most vulnerable, who 
have the least in terms of resources to pay for these prescription 
drugs are the ones that are victimized to the greatest extent by this 
situation.
  It is also an irony that is not lost on the seniors in this country 
that their pets can access these same prescription drugs for 
dramatically less than they can.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the comments of 
my colleagues from both sides of the aisle that have spoken in favor of 
the Crowley amendment, and I urge that all of our colleagues join in 
supporting this amendment to the appropriations bill.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as the sponsor of this amendment, let me say that I am 
somewhat surprised at the support that this amendment has received from 
the other side of the aisle. I am astounded, quite frankly. I 
appreciate the support of many of the individuals who have

[[Page 13596]]

spoken to me, some of whom are friends of mine from the other side of 
the aisle. I appreciate their comments on the floor. In no way do I 
believe that they are not being sincere at this point in time.
  But just under 2 weeks ago, we stood here on this floor; and we 
passed a bill that I call to the floor a sham; and I continue to call 
that bill a sham.
  The amendment that my colleagues have before them today is really of 
very little consequence, and I am the sponsor of this amendment. It 
basically takes away the authority of the FDA to prosecute any 
individual who reimports drugs that were made in this country. But it 
really is an attempt to shine a light on price discrimination in the 
United States.
  But what this amendment does show, Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, is 
the hypocrisy of this House at times. In 1 week we can pass a sham of a 
bill, and a week and a half later, come back and pass an amendment that 
in and of itself will not go far enough to help most of the seniors in 
this country who are not insured, seniors who struggle on a weekly 
basis to pay rent, to pay their bills.
  My constituent from Jackson Heights, Ann Greenbaum, pays $300 for a 
particular drug that her son needs, the exact same drug, and pays $15 
under his plan. I will not say how old Mrs. Greenbaum is. She is 
considerably older than her son. These are the individuals we are 
trying to help.
  My amendment, Mr. Chairman, will not help directly Ms. Greenbaum. 
What it does do, though, is highlight the hypocrisy of this House, how 
we can pass a bill that will not help the Mrs. Greenbaums of the world, 
will help some individuals, but certainly will not help enough.
  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. Crowley).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 538, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 52 Offered by Mr. Royce

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

       Amendment No. 52 offered by Mr. Royce:
       Strike section 741.

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) reserves a 
point of order.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, the rationale behind this amendment is 
simple. Hard-working taxpayers should not have to subsidize the 
advertising costs of America's private corporations. In my view, that 
is what the Market Access Program does.
  Since 1986, the Federal Government has extracted $2 billion from the 
tax-paying public and has spent it for advertising on the part of 
larger corporations and cooperatives in subsidies to basically 
underwrite their marketing programs in foreign countries.
  I think the American people would agree that their money could be 
better spent on deficit reduction or education or the environment or 
tax cuts rather than these advertising budgets.
  Originally, this bill contained a provision quietly inserted that 
would have allowed American tax dollars to be spent promoting the sale 
of luxury mink products in foreign countries. However, once we 
discovered their plan to expand eligibility in the MAP program, 
proponents reversed the course and agreed to strike the provision in 
the bill.
  But an important question remains, if it is wrong to spend hard-
earned American tax dollars on the promotion of mink products, why is 
it acceptable to spend those same tax dollars overseas to promote other 
products?
  Last April, the GAO released an independent report, a report that was 
requested by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and myself and 
Senator Schumer. That report questioned the economic benefits of the 
foreign agricultural service study, which had advanced the arguments to 
begin with in the favor of this bill.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from California yield 
for a parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. ROYCE. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, what amendment are we debating?
  Mr. ROYCE. Amendment number 52 to eliminate the Market Access 
Program.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is correct.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would just like to 
share that in the report the GAO determined that the Foreign 
Agricultural Service overstated the program's economic input, used a 
faulty methodology, which is inconsistent with Office of Management and 
Budget cost benefit guidelines.
  The GAO also determined that the evidence contained within the 
relevant studies which estimate MAP's impact on specific markets is 
inconclusive. In fact, for every targeted market in which MAP funds 
demonstrated a positive effect, the studies found other target markets 
in which there was no discernible effect at all.
  So various studies commissioned by Congress, commissioned by the 
Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee have determined the economic 
benefits of the MAP program to be overstated, to be inconclusive, and 
to be speculative.
  But even if one does believe the flawed studies used by the 
proponents, one has all the more reasons to support the amendment. 
Because if MAP works, then corporations and trade associations ought to 
be spending their own money on their advertising budgets. The taxpayers 
should not be spending it.
  Finally, MAP proponents have argued that due to recent reforms, big 
corporations no longer receive MAP funds. It is true that, in order to 
correct some of the more egregious abuses of the Market Access Program 
of which we pointed out in the past, reforms were enacted that limit 
companies to 5 years of assistance in a particular country. After this 
time, companies were to be graduated from that country's market.
  While in fact some of the corporations were graduated in 1998, the 
graduation requirements were waived for cooperatives. What was the 
result of that waiver? The result was that large corporations received 
the subsidies.
  We simply do not need this wasteful program. Let us be honest. Most 
American businesses do not benefit and do not try to take advantage of 
government handouts like MAP. In the case of MAP, as in most corporate 
welfare programs, beneficiaries consist primarily of politically well-
connected corporations and trade associations.
  Most, if not all of these organizations, would advertise their 
products overseas even without MAP funds, and they probably would work 
much harder to ensure that the money is well spent.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress should end the practice of wasting tax dollars 
on special interest spending programs that unfairly take money from 
hard-working families to help profitable private companies increase 
their bottom line.
  MAP is a massive corporate welfare program in my opinion, and we 
should eliminate it. I urge the support of the amendment.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) insist 
on his point of order?
  Mr. SKEEN. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair finds that the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) proposes to strike from the bill 
a section already stricken on a point of order and, therefore, the 
amendment is not in order.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, my question to the parliamentarian was 
whether offering amendment No. 51 or No. 52 would be in order. I 
believe he said 52. If I understand correctly, then the answer would 
have been No. 51.

[[Page 13597]]

  It is amendment No. 51 that could be offered.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) has the 
apologies of the Chair. In fact, the gentleman would be correct in 
offering amendment No. 51.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, that being the case, that concludes my 
opening arguments on amendment No. 51.


                 Amendment No. 51 Offered by Mr. Royce

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will entertain the offer of the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Royce).
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate amendment No. 51.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Amendment No. 51 offered by Mr. Royce:
       Page 96, after line 4, insert the following:

                TITLE IX--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 901. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to award any new 
     allocations under the market access program or to pay the 
     salaries of personnel to award such allocations.

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a near-annual amendment, so I will not speak at 
length.
  For many small companies in the United States, this program is the 
only way they have of promoting their products in markets overseas. 
Small companies cannot afford sophisticated marketing campaigns or 
presence overseas. The Market Access Program helps them reach those 
markets, increase their sales, increase employment, and, ultimately, 
benefit the farmers and ranchers that produce the raw materials.
  I would also add, Mr. Chairman, that our competitors in Europe are 
spending far more than the authorized $90 million a year that the 
Market Access Program provides.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote 
``no.''
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment also. 
I think, as the distinguished gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman 
Skeen) has said, the Market Access Program is a program that comes 
under attack every year in this appropriations process. But yet the 
Market Access Program is designed to help small and independents 
producers, small businesses get into foreign markets.
  This Congress basically has said to our agricultural producers that 
the savior for your future is foreign markets. But, yet, we are 
unwilling, we make an attempt on an annual basis to eliminate a program 
which helps small businesses and agricultural producers get into those 
markets.
  Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) quoted 
some report. I would like to read from a report that was done by 
Deloitte and Touche, who was hired by the National Association of State 
Departments of Agriculture to evaluate MAP. I quote, ``MAP is a 
significant source of support for new companies and new products 
entering foreign markets. MAP support is also beneficial to small firms 
as they begin to export. Our cases suggest that, without MAP support, 
many small firms would not be capable of carrying out standard 
marketing programs in key foreign markets.''
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage the Members to defeat the amendment.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The MAP 
program is something that works. It not only enables our products to be 
sold overseas and to be promoted over there, but we have to keep in 
mind that any dollar spent in the MAP program are matched by the 
commodity groups themselves. So if one is a pork producer, one puts 
one's dollars in the program. If one is a corn or soybean producer or 
beef producer or rice, whatever product it is, one has to match those 
funds.
  It is extraordinarily important that we maintain the market access 
and to promote our products overseas and to show the world the quality 
products that we have in America and to find markets for our products 
overseas.
  The MAP program in years past had some problems with it. It has been 
reformed. It is not putting any particular hamburger brand or something 
promoting those type of products overseas. These are commodities that 
are being promoted overseas. It is extraordinarily important that we 
maintain this program.
  I would just like to say also, the gentleman on an earlier amendment 
talked about the assistance that is needed for agriculture and the 
payments and the emergencies and all of that. Well, this will go 
farther to help us avoid those types of problems in the future than 
probably any other program. At a time when especially in the Southeast 
Asian market where they are recovering, we need to be there promoting 
American agricultural products so that we can regain the share of 
market that was lost before when they went through their financial 
crisis.
  So just in closing, Mr. Chairman, I would strongly urge Members to 
defeat this amendment. It is very important for American agriculture to 
maintain this very small assistance for our farmers.

                              {time}  1815

  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Royce amendment. The 
Market Access Program, or MAP, is a valuable program and it serves our 
Nation's agricultural growers and our producers well. MAP has been a 
tremendous asset in opening overseas markets and keeping U.S. 
agricultural exports competitive in the world market. They do not play 
on an even playing field without the help of MAP.
  As many of my colleagues know, I am privileged to represent Sonoma 
and Marin Counties, one of our Nation's premier wine-making regions of 
the country; and the wine industry is vital to my area. But it is not 
just vital to the people I work for in my congressional district, it is 
also vital to the entire State of California. In fact, California 
produces more than 90 percent of the United States' wine exports.
  While our wine speaks for itself, we still need help crossing the 
borders. The same is true with fruits and almonds and the many other 
products where the U.S. excels. We also face uneven trade barriers 
around the globe with these products, and we need assistance from USDA. 
This assistance is very important.
  This is why I am a steadfast enthusiastic supporter of this program. 
I regret that the program has been a perennial target for budgetary 
cuts, but I am very pleased that Congress each time, time and again, 
has understood the worthiness of this program and has, in their wisdom, 
continued to fund the MAP program.
  I urge my colleagues to continue its support for the Market Access 
Program and to vote against the Royce amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we face challenges in this country if we are to 
maintain a strong agricultural industry. The challenge right now is 
that other countries are doing better than we are helping their 
farmers. As much as this country works to operate this particular 
program of marketing help to get the word out of the quality of our 
products and the price of our products, our appropriations are flat and 
we are losing ground with other countries.
  For example, I would call to the attention for the gentleman from 
California that the European Union spends $92 million more than we do. 
Twice as much! The Cairns Group, countries of Australia, Canada, New 
Zealand, Brazil and others spend $306 million more than we do. So 
imagine, not only are countries such as the E.U. spending more than the 
United States in their so-called MAP program, in their effort to 
enhance marketing and promote their farmers' products, they are 
subsidizing their farmers up to five times as much as we do.

[[Page 13598]]

  So on the one hand they are subsidizing their farmers to reduce the 
price they must charge for their exports and additionally they spend 
more on promotion--Huge competition for our American farmers, and in 
effect right now with the disastrous situation for farmers and ranchers 
in this country, it will put many of our farmers out of business. 
Again, not only are those countries subsidizing heavily to reduce their 
costs, but also they are spending much more than we are, double what we 
are, for example in Europe, to market their particular products at this 
lower subsidized price.
  We have to make a decision in this country whether we are going to 
keep a strong ag industry in the United States. I think we should! This 
amendment should be defeated.
  The export decline of the past several years has been harsh for 
America's farmers and ranchers, as well as for policy makers trying to 
address their concerns. While our export programs will never be a 
substitute for strong global markets and good agricultural policy we 
must ensure that the programs we administer are effective and 
efficient.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not claim to be from an agriculture rich district. 
In Brooklyn and Queens we do not grow all that much, or at least all 
that much that is addressed here in this bill, but I can tell my 
colleagues that I have been someone who has supported agriculture bills 
in this House because I recognize that there is a confluence of 
interest that exists. But just the same way frequently those of us who 
advocate for urban programs are called to task to defend some things in 
the bills that we support that often are troublesome, such is the case 
here for my friends who support agriculture spending.
  Just so it is clear to those who are watching this debate, who are 
not as familiar with agriculture programs, like I am, this is 
essentially a program that pays for advertising for some of the biggest 
corporations in the United States. In the life of this program, to give 
some sense of context to this, McDonald's has received over $7 million. 
The Sunkist Corporation received nearly $7 million. Ernest and Julio 
Gallo received $5 million of taxpayer money to help, in essence, 
advertize their products overseas.
  The argument that has been made a couple of times on this floor is, 
listen, we have to do it because there are those in other countries who 
are paying to subsidize their products and advertize them as well. 
Well, we are not in other countries. We do not represent the taxpayers 
in those countries, and we can argue the efficacy of doing that at 
another time. But the question we have to ask is, is this the wisest 
way for us to form coalitions behind agriculture programs and help 
family farmers that we have heard so much about on the floor this past 
couple of weeks.
  Is the Pillsbury Corporation, the Wrangler Corporation, Burger King, 
Campbell Soup, General Mills, Hershey Foods, are these companies that 
really need our help with their advertising budget?
  This is an amendment, and I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Chabot) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) for offering it, 
this is an amendment that simply says let us have a strong agriculture 
policy. Let us have an agriculture policy that helps our farmers stay 
in business, that helps those of us in urban areas to continue to 
thrive because the agriculture sector is doing as well as possible. Let 
us try to help people from the bottom up.
  This is a classic case of going into the corporate boardrooms and 
saying here is a bag of money because that is essentially what the MAP 
program is. If my colleagues think that Tyson Food needs some help, 
then the MAP program is good; if my colleagues think the Ocean Spray 
Cranberries Company needs some help, then the MAP program is probably 
one my colleagues would support.
  In order to ensure that we are able to keep these coalitions together 
that help agriculture bills and help other bills pass, we have to weed 
out, no pun intended, some of the things that are truly weak in these 
programs, and this is such a case. I would urge my colleagues to 
support this reduction in the MAP program.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 10 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will divide the time equally between the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) proponent of the amendment, and 
an opponent of the amendment, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. 
Skeen). The gentleman from California will control 5 minutes and the 
gentleman from New Mexico will control 5 minutes.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Latham).
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to clarify something that was 
just previously said.
  McDonald's does not get a dime of money, Tyson Food does not get a 
dime of money, the Sunkist Corporation does not get a dime of money. 
That is old news. As I mentioned earlier, this has been reformed.
  The only thing we are promoting here are the products themselves. No 
brand names. No corporate brand names. So that argument is totally 
bogus. I want every Member to understand that. This promotion goes to 
promote pork, to promote eggs, to promote beef, soybeans, corn, 
whatever.
  There is no McDonald's, there is no Sunkist, there is no Tyson. And 
for someone to say that is totally erroneous, and I want to just 
clarify that for the House.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much 
for yielding me this time.
  Before anyone votes for this amendment, think what is going on in 
America. This is the harvest season. This is time we celebrate. People 
are eating corn on the cob, having back-yard barbecues, watermelons are 
being eaten. This is the is time we are celebrating county fairs all 
over the United States. We celebrate agriculture, our number one 
industry.
  Our number one industry needs to find markets. We grow more food in 
the United States than we can consume. If we are going to keep the 
prices of agriculture low (and frankly I think in many cases they are 
too low), we need to keep the markets open for growers to be able to 
sell their crops.
  So my colleagues, before voting for this amendment, which is a bad 
amendment, wake up and smell the coffee. Every time we watch television 
and we see Juan Valdez telling us to buy Colombian coffee, not to buy a 
particular brand but to buy Colombian coffee, that is market promotion. 
We see wine industries in Italy trying to sell us Italian wine. That is 
market promotion.
  American consumers are being sold by market promotion by foreign 
competitors all the time and we do not realize that we need to do the 
same for our crops in this global market. So wake up and smell that 
coffee. Strike down this amendment. It is a bad amendment precisely 
because it will not allow the small businesses, that this bill 
emphasizes, to be able to take advantage of this expanded program. Not 
those large corporations, which was falsely stated, that use to get a 
lot of the market promotion. That stuff was struck out in 1998.
  This market promotion helps keep agriculture viable in the United 
States. It is absolutely essential that we keep our markets open. And 
we have a trade surplus. That we keep this all in the black. So let us 
keep America strong, keep agriculture strong, and strike down this 
amendment. Thank you.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
this amendment.

[[Page 13599]]

  I am very aware of the problems facing the agricultural economy. It 
is abundantly clear that the prosperity of our economy as a whole does 
not extend to our farmers and ranchers. Although agricultural 
producers' problems are as diverse as the crops they grow, there is one 
point on which they all agree--the need for more export markets. There 
is no question that exports are already vital to the health of the 
agriculture sector. Approximately one-third of all the harvested 
acreage in the United States is exported, and 62 percent of these 
exports are of high value products. Is it any wonder then that farmers 
and ranchers suffer when exports decrease, as they have in recent 
years, falling from $60 billion in 1996 to $49 billion last year?
  Fortunately, we have effective tools at our disposal to enhance our 
nation's agricultural exports. The Market Access Program (MAP) is a 
program that works--and works well--without distorting world markets 
through export subsidies. How? By providing matching funds for 
commodity groups and small businesses to conduct market research, 
technical assistance, trade servicing, advertising and consumer 
promotions abroad. The American farmer produces some of the highest 
quality food products in the world, but we can't assume that every 
international consumer knows about them. MAP helps fill this education 
gap and allow our producers to create the new export opportunities so 
sorely needed by growers and processors.
  A prime example of how these programs work to benefit agricultural 
producers took place in my district earlier this month. The National 
Potato Promotion Board and the Washington State Potato Commission 
sponsored a tour and a series of briefings on processed potato 
products, and dehydrated potatoes in particular, for food industry 
research and development executives from the Philippines, China, Korea, 
Japan, and Mexico. These representatives learned about American potato 
products and how they can be used in consumer products abroad. This 
tour, partially funded by MAP dollars, will likely result in new 
opportunities to export value-added agricultural products.
  I believe that it is simple common sense to support this kind of 
successful promotion effort. That is why I introduced legislation to 
increase funding for MAP and the Foreign Market Development Program 
(FMDP) earlier this year. This legislation, H.R. 3593, the 
``Agricultural Market Access and Development Act,'' authorizes the 
Secretary of Agriculture to spend up to $200 million--but not less than 
the current $90 million--on MAP. Likewise, the bill requires that a 
minimum of $35 million be spent on the promotion of U.S. bulk 
commodities overseas through FMDP.
  These increases are funded using unspent funds for the Export 
Enhancement Program (EEP), usually around $500 million per year. EEP 
promotes U.S. exports through direct subsidies and is therefore subject 
to Uruguay Round restrictions and slated for reduction.
  Right now, foreign countries directly subsidize their agricultural 
exports and spend far more than the U.S. does each year promoting their 
products abroad. MAP and FMDP are the only programs that give our 
farmers and ranchers the chance to compete on a level playing field 
worldwide.
  These are proven and effective programs--and they are good for our 
producers. It's time to expand MAP and FMDP so that more growers can 
benefit from export opportunities.
  Mr. Chairman, for these reasons I rise in strong opposition to my 
friend's amendment to cut funding for the Market Access Program. We 
must work to open up opportunities to our farmers, not hamstring 
efforts to ensure agriculture success and independence. I urge my 
colleagues to vote no on this amendment and support a level playing 
field for American agriculture in the world market.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) is recognized 
for 2 minutes.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  I certainly share with my colleague from California who introduced 
this amendment a level of discomfort with the market promotion program, 
the way it was structured several years ago. I think all of us in this 
body did. But the fact of the matter is the program has been adjusted. 
The most difficult to justify portions of the program have been 
eliminated, and what we are left with is generally a program that is 
promoting American agricultural products in foreign markets in a way 
that benefits farmers as opposed to benefiting corporate America.
  I visited some of these offices, particularly in Japan. I have seen 
the men and the women that work for the Federal Government and work for 
some of the commodity groups present their material to the public in 
those countries, and I know that what they are doing is introducing 
American agricultural products to foreign consumers to build markets 
for American agricultural products, to open new opportunities for 
farmers in the United States, and I urge my colleagues to join in 
supporting this program.
  There is no sector of the American economy that is more troubled than 
farming. We need to make sure that we explore every opportunity for 
America's farmers, not slam the door shut at this point in our economic 
history.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, the Market Access Program is the leftover product of 
two previously failed USDA programs, the Market Promotion Program and 
the Targeted Export Assistance Program, and MAP funnels tax dollars to 
corporate trade associations and cooperatives to advertise private 
products overseas.
  Now, let me reiterate my position here. I think advertising is a 
function of the private sector, not of the taxpayers. While proponents 
of the program claim that it boosts exports, claims that it creates 
jobs, there is no evidence to support it. General Accounting Office 
studies indicate that this program has no discernible effect on U.S. 
agricultural exports. The private sector knows how to advertise. It 
does not need government interference. Taxpayer dollars merely replace 
money that would be spent by private companies on their own 
advertising.
  Provisions in the 1996 farm bill have attempted to reform MAP, but 
thus far have failed. The GAO audit and other audits find it 
overstated, inconclusive, and speculative in terms of its effect.

                              {time}  1830

  Although the percentage of large companies that get MAP money have 
decreased, a number of corporations still receive millions of dollars 
indirectly through trade associations. The studies show that about 
three-quarters of the money indirectly benefits these corporations.
  Under this year's bill, an attempt also was made to expand MAP. 
Fortunately, this provision was stricken; and now we go to the question 
of the program itself. I believe it is now time to end the program.
  In the last 10 years, American taxpayers have shelled out $1 billion 
for this subsidy. I think the American people would agree that their 
money could be better spent, and I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Royce 
amendment to eliminate the Market Access Program (MAP).
  Several weeks ago, the House passed legislation to grant PNTR to 
China. One of the best arguments for PNTR is that it will grant U.S. 
producers access to the Chinese market, much of which has been closed 
for too many years.
  MAP is the program that will help U.S. producers--not large 
agribusinesses--gain that access. Exporting is a challenge, even for 
the most experienced. Many individual producers and small companies 
find it difficult to break into it and to be competitive 
internationally. MAP helps our producers, primarily through grants to 
state departments of agriculture, to overcome these hurdles by 
partially funding international market research and trade missions to 
foreign countries.
  Access to the Chinese market does us no good if we can't take 
advantage of it. MAP will help our producers develop it and become 
better at international trade and marketing. Reject this short-sighted 
amendment. Support MAP.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 538, further proceedings 
on

[[Page 13600]]

the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) will 
be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, in full committee I offered an amendment to deal with 
the concentration of economic power in the processing industry in this 
country. We cannot offer that amendment on the floor because of budget 
limitations, but I want to make clear that before this bill returns 
from conference, it ought to do a number of things.
  I wanted to add funding for the Grain Inspection Packers and 
Stockyards Administration, for instance, and to the Agriculture 
Department's Office of General Counsel to bring both accounts up to the 
amount requested by the President. The reason that I wanted to do that 
is very simple: we can throw all the money in the world that we want to 
at farm programs, but unless we deal with the fact that the agriculture 
industry is largely dominated by oligopolies, we are not going to do 
very much to help either the consumer or the farmer in the process.
  There are four companies that now control 81 percent of cattle 
purchases, beef processing and wholesale marketing, and in only 5 years 
we have seen the margin between the price paid to farmers and wholesale 
price of beef jump by 24 percent. It just doesn't apply to the beef 
industry.
  If you look at the pork market, four companies now control 56 percent 
of the pork market, and the margin between the wholesale price of pork 
and the price paid to the farmer has jumped by more than 50 percent.
  We have had a continuous consolidation in the grain industry and in 
the dairy industry and an amazing concentration of economic power in 
the poultry industry, where giant corporations such as Perdue and 
Tyson's are not only squeezing farmers, but also abusing workers and 
wreaking havoc on the environment in the process.
  To really address these problems, it seems to me we need substantive 
legislation, for example to grant the Agriculture Department authority 
to review mergers and acquisitions affecting farming and food, and we 
need to do a variety of other things. That, obviously, is beyond the 
scope of this bill. But this bill, for instance, in addition to the 
other funding shortfalls that I have discussed, also has a serious 
shortfall in the Office of General Counsel. We need to correct those 
problems when this bill comes back from conference.
  As I say, we are precluded from offering an amendment to do anything 
major on this right now because of the Budget Act, but it is my full 
intention to see to it that when we go to conference, this matter is 
corrected; because until we do correct it, the consumers are going to 
continue to get euchred by the situation, and so will virtually every 
small farmer in America.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, as you may know, I have an amendment at the desk. I 
rise to explain why I will not be offering that amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, that amendment deals with the provisions of this bill 
which provide funds for the inspection and facilitation of agricultural 
imports, particularly those from the Islamic Republic of Iran. In March 
of this year the administration lifted our ban on imports from Iran as 
to four products, three of them agricultural products; and I believe 
that lifting this ban may have been the result of undue optimism, or at 
least premature optimism.
  The rhetoric in Tehran has improved, but the actions of the Iranian 
government have not. A year and a half ago, 13 Jews were arrested in 
the southern Iranian city of Shiraz. They have been subjected to show 
trials. Ten have been convicted. The average sentence is 9 years. Some 
of the sentences go up to 13 years.
  That is why, Mr. Chairman, I drafted an amendment that would say that 
those three agricultural imports cannot come into this country, or at 
least none of our taxpayer dollars could be used for the necessary 
inspection.
  But just as I believe the lifting of the ban on those imports may 
have reflected premature optimism, I do not want to be guilty of 
premature pessimism. It is quite possible, I think, that the Iranian 
president or their appellate court system will in the next few weeks 
vacate those verdicts, or at least release the prisoners. So I think it 
is best that I not offer this amendment, especially because this 
amendment, if adopted, would lock us into a particular position for an 
entire fiscal year; and it would deny the use of those funds to 
facilitate imports from Iran for the entire fiscal year.
  Instead, I think it better that I will join with others in 
introducing legislation that will provide for a ban on all Iranian 
exports to the United States, agricultural and non-agricultural, until 
such time as the President of the U.S. is able to certify that the 
Iranian government has made substantial improvements in the treatment 
of its religious minorities.
  Mr. Chairman, the charges against the 13 jailed in Shiraz were 
absurd, since no Jew in Iran is allowed to come anywhere near anything 
of military or security significance.
  Mr. Chairman, the trials were reminiscent of those of Joseph Stalin, 
show trials with forced confessions, no evidence and very little 
specificity to the charges; and the verdicts were harsh, 10 convictions 
subjecting the defendants to a total of 89 years in prison.
  Many governments around the world have said that these trials are the 
yardstick by which Iran must be judged as to whether it has made 
improvements in human rights and whether it has made improvements in 
treating its religious minorities. Clearly, Iran has not yet improved 
its behavior, even as there has been hopeful rhetoric.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that we should adopt the slogan ``no justice, 
no caviar.'' We should certainly not allow the import of caviar, 
pistachios, dried fruit, or carpets into this country until justice is 
achieved.
  Not only is a ban on the imports to the United States from Iran 
helpful in that it applies some pressure economically to Iran, it is 
also the strongest way that we can signal our position and puts us in a 
stronger position to deal with other countries: Germany, where the 
Iranian foreign minister is visiting today; Japan, which, 
unfortunately, is funding hydroelectric facilities in Iran; and the 
World Bank, which, unfortunately, approved, but did not yet disburse, a 
loan of $231 million.
  So, Mr. Chairman, my hope is that this amendment will turn out to be 
unnecessary; that the authorities in Iran will reverse the decision of 
the trial court, or at least pardon the defendants. If that does not 
occur, then we will be in the position to move with a separate bill 
that will allow more flexibility and a greater scope than is allowed in 
an amendment to an appropriations bill. A separate bill will apply to 
non-agricultural goods, as well as agricultural goods, and provide the 
flexibility of a presidential certification.
  In addition, I would hope that if a month from now these obscenely 
harsh verdicts are not reversed, that the conference committee will see 
fit to add my amendment to this Agricultural Appropriations bill before 
it comes back to this House.
  So that explains, why, Mr. Chairman, I will not be offering my 
amendment.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the 
purpose of entering into a colloquy with the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Agriculture of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to bring to your attention the fire blight 
problem which destroyed many apple and pear crops in Michigan. While 
back home this past week, I personally saw the devastation in literally 
orchard after orchard along the road.
  In May, a severe disaster struck Michigan, all but destroying the 
apple and pear crops in this highly intensive agriculture region. In 
addition to extremely wet, warm, and humid weather conditions 
throughout the month, a severe thunderstorm passed over southwest 
Michigan in May, causing severe

[[Page 13601]]

damage to fruit trees and fruit crops. The thunderstorm's hail, high 
wind, and heavy rain scarred and wounded the leaves, limbs and fruit on 
the trees. In the case of apple and pear trees, these wounds provided 
an avenue for the fire blight to enter the trees, causing severe and 
widespread disease.
  The result is that nearly 7,650 acres of the 17,000 acres of apple 
trees in this region have been severely affected by fire blight. Some 
of the remaining 9,000-some acres are affected as well, depending upon 
apple variety; but the trees are expected to recover in future years. 
Of the acreage severely affected, we suspect that nearly some 2,000 
acres of apple trees will, in fact, die. The remainder may be saved, 
but their production in the future will certainly be significantly 
reduced.
  My governor, Governor Engler, in conjunction with myself, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Ehlers), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), and Senator 
Abraham have requested Secretary Glickman to designate the affected 
counties in Michigan as a disaster area, which should help to some 
degree.
  However, more must be done. I am pleased to report that Senator 
Abraham in the other body is working with his colleagues to provide 
some additional funds for relief as this body considers the fiscal year 
2001 agriculture appropriation bill.
  I would ask the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) that as 
this bill moves through the legislative process that the gentleman work 
with our colleagues in the other body to provide much-needed relief to 
growers in southwest Michigan whose crops have been devastated by this 
fire blight.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. UPTON. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his 
attention to this important issue. I give him my assurance that as this 
bill moves through the legislative process, I will do all that I can to 
work with the other body to provide much needed funding for the growers 
in southwest Michigan whose crops have been devastated by fire blight.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for his assurance, and I look forward to working with him in the future 
to make sure that we get needed assistance back to our growers in the 
Midwest.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Coburn

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Coburn:
       Insert before the short title the following title:

                TITLE IX--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 901. None of the amounts made available in this Act 
     for the Food and Drug Administration may be expended to take 
     any action (administrative or otherwise) to interfere with 
     the importation into the United States of drugs that have 
     been approved for use within the United States and were 
     manufactured in an FDA-approved facility in the United 
     States, Canada, or Mexico.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that time for 
debate on this amendment be limited to 10 minutes in opposition and 10 
minutes in favor.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) will control 
10 minutes, and a Member opposed to the amendment will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to thank the gentleman from Maine 
(Mr. Baldacci), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), and 
several others for their work in this area.
  All this bill says is we are not going to intimidate seniors who are 
following the law, following NAFTA, and bringing drugs into this 
country from Canada or Mexico, as long as those are approved drugs and 
they have been manufactured in FDA-approved facilities.
  Mr. Chairman, we have debated this issue to a great extent. All this 
amendment will do is say ``hands off, FDA'' on legal and qualified 
manufactured products. It does not have anything to do with limiting 
their ability on safety; it does not apply to anything but a legal 
drug. So that means my patients who now are trying to get their drugs 
from Canada, from Oklahoma, can in fact have a prescription mailed to 
Canada or Mexico and have it filled and shipped across the border, and 
the FDA cannot intimidate them and say they cannot do that. That is all 
we are talking about, drugs that are manufactured in this country and 
manufactured in FDA-approved facilities that are legal drugs.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there a Member that rises in opposition to the 
amendment?
  If not, does the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) yield time?

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Baldacci).
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for 
his leadership in this area and his knowledge and the way he has been 
able to work together in a bipartisan fashion to get this issue 
addressed.
  This is a very important issue to the State of Maine which borders 
Canada and which sees its citizens go regularly across the border in 
frustration as to why those same particular medicines cost so much less 
than they do in their own country. Recognizing that, the pharmaceutical 
industry, which I do not intend to vilify, has only said that they 
charge whatever the market will bear. I recognize, and this amendment 
recognizes, that many American citizens cannot bear what the 
pharmaceuticals are charging.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment to 
be able to send a message that this is not an acceptable practice. We 
are watching many of our seniors have to split their drugs in half or 
not take them at all because they cannot afford them and they can go 
right across the border for the same drug that is manufactured in this 
country at a third or a fourth of the price, and only recognizing that 
it is the companies, in charging what they are charging, that is the 
differential between what they are paying and what the counterparts 
across the border will pay. We must ensure that the taxpayers who are 
providing the basic research at NIH and other research facilities, 
building the elemental research which the pharmaceutical industry 
builds upon those tax dollars, that the taxpayers of the United States 
have an opportunity to access in an affordable fashion.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman for his leadership in working 
together in a bipartisan fashion to address this issue and many other 
Members that are working on this issue, in the final analysis, to make 
sure that at the end of the day, the seniors have affordable, 
accessible prescription medicines so that they do not have to worry 
about the quality of their life and be able to be independent and live 
out their lives in a quality environment.
  I support the amendment.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this pending 
amendment which would do more than any single action to lower the 
prices in this country for prescription medications.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Coburn) yield?
  Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would ask very simple questions of those 
who have drafted this amendment and are offering it. Do the gentlemen 
wish to do anything in this amendment that

[[Page 13602]]

would lessen the inspection that the FDA does of drugs that may be 
manufactured or sold in another country and used by U.S. citizens? I 
want to understand the full intent of the amendment, because when the 
FDA Commissioner came before our subcommittee and I asked the question 
about drugs from other countries, she said that they could not give 
certainty that they were of equal quality.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the drugs that are 
produced in FDA-approved facilities, they do assure at this time that 
they are made to the same standard as the drugs that are made in this 
country. Otherwise, they would not have their approved labeling from 
the FDA, and that is true in all FDA-approved facilities.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the 
clarification.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to discuss a 
little bit about this problem.
  We spent 2 weeks ago talking about the crisis in the pharmaceutical 
industry as far as our seniors in getting drugs. It is not just our 
seniors; it is everybody in this country is paying too much for drugs. 
There are five things that could happen tomorrow to lower the price for 
prescription drugs in this country. This is a small step that would 
help. It is not even one of the major ones.
  The number one thing is to have a competitive market for prices in 
this country. We believe in free enterprise; there is not free 
enterprise in the pharmaceutical industry right now. All one has to do 
is look at the FTC Web site. There is documented collusion. We need to 
address that.
  Number two, our President needs to stand up and bully pulpit the 
pharmaceutical industry's prices. We do not need price controls. We 
need competition. Competition allocates scarce resources better than 
any type of price control ever will. What we need is real competition. 
Ms. Reno has received a letter signed by me asking for an investigation 
of which as of today, now, 4 weeks later, there has been no response on 
the documented areas of collusion within the drug industry.
  Number three, doctors need to do a better job giving generics to 
seniors, and they are not.
  Finally, number four, the pharmaceutical companies are not all bad. 
They do a lot of good things. There are private, indigent programs in 
the pharmaceutical industry that the health professions need to 
utilize. They will supply their drugs.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Baldacci).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci) is recognized 
for 4 minutes.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Minge).
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the 
remarks of my colleagues from Oklahoma, from Maine, from New Hampshire 
and other Members that have spoken in support of this.
  In Minnesota I know that we have had many seniors that have gone on 
bus trips and otherwise to Canada to purchase prescription drugs and 
often they come back with a feeling of intimidation. What we need to do 
is to assure them that if they are purchasing drugs that are safe, if 
they are purchasing drugs that are important for their health, that 
they are not subject to the harassment or the problems that they might 
face at the border when they come back.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Burton).
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment, because the gentleman from Oklahoma raised the issue of 
collusion. We have held hearings with the advisory panels of the Food 
and Drug Administration and the CDC that makes recommendations on 
vaccines, and we have found through our committee investigations that 
many of the people who are on these advisory committees that are making 
the decisions on what kind of vaccines our children are getting are 
being paid by the pharmaceutical companies that own large amounts of 
stock in the pharmaceutical companies.
  So I would just like to say that the collusion that the gentleman 
refers to is not limited to the price controls or price problems that 
he has been talking about here today. We believe that there are other 
problems that need to be addressed. So I think the gentleman is on the 
right track, and I support this amendment strongly.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), if he would like to follow up 
and reinforce the safety and labeling issues that have been raised 
here.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to address those issues. Number 
one, we cannot manufacture a drug that comes into this country unless 
we are manufacturing it in an FDA-approved facility. That is number 
one. So safety is not a concern, and they can do whatever they want if 
it is not manufactured in an FDA-approved facility. Number two, it does 
not apply to a drug that is not approved in this country. So as far as 
the drugs that are approved in this country, those are the ones that 
are manufactured in an FDA-approved facility that will come in safe.
  All we are saying is, since NAFTA is here, and I would have voted 
against had I been a Member of Congress at that time, but since it is 
here, let us use it. Let us get some benefit out of it besides stealing 
some of our jobs. So let us utilize NAFTA. This will not hamper the 
FDA.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I just want to first of all 
say that we are not under any illusions that all of a sudden one 
amendment is going to turn things around, but I believe that it is like 
many things, that it sends a message out, and from a million different 
amendments and messages and resolutions, at the end of the day, they 
have to receive the message and have got to be able to sit down and 
fashion a proposal that works universally across the board, accessible 
and affordable to all of our seniors, regardless of where they live and 
what their income is.
  I think what we are seeing here today on the floor of the House and 
have seen throughout the country is a frustration with recognizing that 
something is up. People have figured out long before all of us that 
something is up and we need to address it. This is just one vehicle, 
one way to be able to do it. There are many others, and I support many 
of the different approaches, but at the end of the day, we have to make 
sure the seniors are taken care of.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about this amendment and 
perhaps others that will be offered only from the sense of safety.
  I rise in opposition, reluctantly, to enter into a colloquy with the 
gentleman who is offering the amendment here on our side. That is to 
ask, if a senior citizen, for example, goes on a bus trip from Maine or 
Ohio up to Canada or down to Mexico, when they go to a pharmaceutical 
operation and they go to buy a drug, let us say it is Claritin, how do 
they know that that is manufactured in any of the countries the 
gentleman is talking about with his amendment? Is it labeled? How do 
they know that it was manufactured in an FDA-approved facility?
  The gentleman says in his amendment that these drugs were approved 
for use within the United States and manufactured in an FDA-approved 
facility. Does it say that on the box? Can the gentleman assure me, 
unlike the FDA commissioner who appeared before our committee and did 
not have the confidence that the gentleman has that seniors could be 
assured of equal content and equal inspection of these drugs? How can 
the gentleman be so certain that they are getting a product of equal 
import? If the gentleman could answer that question.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Maine.

[[Page 13603]]


  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I certainly will yield, if I can, to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma who is a physician and practices.
  But my experience, and from people that I have talked to that have 
gone across the border from Maine to Canada have purchased the same 
drug where it is made in the USA, and it does not say right on the 
label that it has been inspected by the FDA, but it was made in the 
USA, and that it is the same drug that they are purchasing.
  Their experience is that they paid $400 or $500 for what would be 
$1,000 in this country. It is no different than what has been happening 
in agriculture with the pesticides and other types of products that are 
manufactured in this country, are sold overseas, and trying to be able 
to reimport those because of a permit process, not because of safety, 
not because of any issue as it may pertain to the impacts of the health 
of the individual, but just because of those issues, our farmers have 
been disadvantaged, our seniors have been disadvantaged, and as the 
gentleman from Oklahoma has said, it seems that NAFTA is a one-way 
street. They build the wall, and nothing gets in, but everything tends 
to come out. The gentlewoman recognizes that in her fights that she has 
led in this Congress over the years with regard to those issues.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) may like to 
respond on the safety issues.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I think a couple of points are important. 
Number one is when we get a drug in this country, we do not know where 
it is made, because a large portion of our drugs in this country are 
made in Europe, made in South America, made in Puerto Rico, in FDA-
approved facilities. They have to meet that standard. That is number 
one. Will there be an accident? Sure, there will be. I will not deny 
that there will be a mistake made in filling a prescription just like 
there is every day in this country as well.
  However, I would challenge the ranking member on this committee, how 
many people are not getting the medicines they needed to because they 
cannot afford to get them, and if we allow competition to resume, which 
this is just one way of doing it, whom of them will markedly benefit 
their health, their quality of life? People's lives are being shortened 
today because of the abnormally high and ridiculously increased prices 
of many pharmaceuticals out there.
  Can we assure 100 percent safety? No. The FDA cannot now. As a matter 
of fact, what they do is they look at drugs and say, are they safe 
enough? There is not any drug that is absolutely safe.

                              {time}  1900

  Aspirin is not absolutely safe. But are we going to markedly increase 
the risk for Americans with this? Absolutely not. The FDA knows those 
facilities.
  Will they have absolute assurance on a drug like Viagra, will 
somebody try to prostitute that drug and make a substitute? They are 
doing that now and they are bringing them in. It is not going to be a 
new problem for the FDA, and it is not going to be more of a problem.
  What it is going to be is more access at better prices for our 
seniors and everybody else in this country for the pharmaceuticals, 
because the competitive model is not working in this industry today. 
This will be a shot that says that we need the competition to work. 
That is why we want to do this.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, perhaps the officials 
from the Food and Drug Administration are listening to this debate. If 
there is any doubt in their minds as to the net effect of this 
amendment as we move towards conference, we can tighten up the language 
to make sure that we do nothing to lessen the food, drug, and safety 
laws of the country, which are the strongest in the world, to protect 
the health of our people.
  I know that neither gentlemen would want to undermine that. 
Obviously, they would want to improve it. Maybe there is some way that 
FDA could indicate on the boxes that it is from an FDA-approved 
facility. I think we want to give consumers ultimate confidence that 
the purchase they are making will not harm them.
  Mr. COBURN. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, the European 
Union today has just as strong rules as we do. They import drugs from 
all over. In terms of quality, efficacy, and safety, their laws are 
almost exactly the same. They are coming from a range of 13 to 15 
countries. If they can do it, certainly we can do it with our 
neighbors.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I would just say to the gentleman, in the food area they 
obviously do not have the same standards. In the drug area, their 
system is quite different.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield further, I 
appreciate the gentlewoman's suggestion. I would encourage the FDA and 
others that have any issue here, that can be tightened up in 
conference. I think that is an excellent suggestion, and I would look 
forward to working with the gentlewoman to tighten that up if it needed 
to be.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for that. I withdraw my reluctant 
opposition, and look forward to the conference on the amendment.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I am astonished that we are again debating 
an amendment that would stifle biomedical research and impose political 
will on an agency whose work is based on the non-partisan rule of 
science. This is an invasion into the FDA's drug approval process--a 
place where Congress has no right to be. We are not scientists. We 
created the FDA and charged it with determining which drugs are safe 
and effective for use in this country. We were wise to do so--the FDA 
has a long history of protecting the public from drugs that are 
uncertain or unsafe.
  This amendment would change all that. In an attempt to impose their 
beliefs on all of America, anti-choice proponents of this amendment 
would have you believe that it would apply to drugs solely for the 
purpose of the chemical induction of abortion. But, in fact, we know 
that it would reach far beyond that.
  Often times drugs are approved for one purpose, and later are found 
safe and effective for treating an entirely different condition. For 
example, the drug Doxil was originally approved by the FDA as an AIDS 
treatment. But later, in June of 1999, the FDA approved the same drug 
for the treatment of ovarian cancer. Even mifepristone, the target of 
this amendment, currently shows promise for use in the treatment of 
breast cancer, benign brain tumors, ovarian cancer, and even prostate 
cancer.
  Let's call this amendment for what it is--an attempt to score a 
political point on abortion. Unfortunately, the casualties in this 
political move are biomedical research, independent scientific 
evaluation of medicines, and patient access to reproductive health 
drugs.
  What this amendment would in fact do is begin a path whereby Congress 
decides, based on political and ideological considerations, what drugs 
it thinks America should or should not have access to, and then blocks 
the FDA from taking action to approve drugs deemed inappropriate. Let 
me ask you, what would this lead to next? Which political issue would 
be the target of the next attempt to thwart research or invade the 
FDA's drug approval process? We must be mindful of the dangerous 
precedent this amendment would set.
  Now is not the time to limit the FDA in their work to determine the 
safety and efficacy of promising new drugs in America. This amendment 
would not only limit the FDA but it would have a chilling effect on 
biomedical research, particularly women's health research, which has 
been severely understudied for years. This amendment may be aimed at 
one issue, but it will have consequences for millions of Americans.
  When we halt action on an entire category of drugs, we erase the 
possibility that those drugs could hold for treating other conditions. 
We stamp out the scientific pursuit of medicines that heal with one 
attempt to limit the safe practice of abortion--which I might remind my 
colleagues is still a legal right in this country.
  This Congress has made biomedical research a priority. We have agreed 
that we have an obligation to fund the search for cures and better 
treatments for disease in this country. We have the unique opportunity 
as lawmakers to use public policy to actually improve people's health 
and improve their lives. But what this amendment would do is exactly 
the opposite--it would place political gain ahead

[[Page 13604]]

of real progress. It would replace the gold standard of drug approval 
that this nation has come to trust with congressional restrictions 
based only on personal ideology--not sound science.
  Speaking as both a legislator and a cancer survivor, I know the value 
of modern medicines. To be quite frank, I am offended by the idea that 
some lawmakers think they can dictate to the FDA what work they can do 
on proposals that could improve the lives of Americans.
  I urge my colleagues--don't force your opinion regarding choice on 
the FDA and the people who rely on it for sound, scientific judgement. 
Allow the FDA to continue the important work it does in evaluating all 
potential pharmaceuticals. Do not subject the FDA scientists to the 
personal philosophies of some Members of this House. Preserve the 
promise of biomedical research and new drugs for all Americans. Defeat 
the Coburn Amendment.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by Representative Coburn.
  For the past three years, Congress has revisited Rep. Coburn's 
amendment to prohibit the FDA from testing, developing, and approving 
drugs that could cause the chemical inducement of abortion. Like the 
so-called ``partial birth abortion'' ban, it has become a hallmark of 
the anti-choice agenda.
  But this measure is not about abortion or even mifepristone. It is 
about Congress trying to dictate what the FDA is permitted to do and 
not to do. As a public health specialist by training, I am appalled 
that my colleagues would attempt to interfere with the FDA's ability to 
test, research, and approve any drug with political mandates.
  Reproductive health drugs should be held to FDA's rigorous science-
based requirements that any drug must meet before approval can be 
granted--just like any other drug. They should not be singled out 
simply because they deal with reproductive health.
  In 1996, the Food and Drug Administration found mifepristone a safe 
and effective method for early medical abortion. This drug has been 
used successfully by more than 500,000 women around the world for over 
twenty years in countries like France, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, 
and was just recently made available in Spain, the Netherlands, 
Australia, and Israel. Every country in Europe, and beyond, seems to 
recognize the benefits of making this drug available to women--except 
the United States.
  This measure seeks not only to deny American women access to 
mifepristone, it also threatens the health of Americans in general. In 
addition to providing safe, medical abortions, there is evidence that 
mifepristone has great potential to treat serious medical conditions 
such as inoperable brain tumors, prostate cancer, and infertility--as 
well as female specific conditions like endometriosis, uterine 
fibroids, and breast cancer.
  I ask my colleagues, how many other uses are there for a drug like 
Viagra? Yet, Viagra hit the market in record time. What kind of message 
does that send to the world? The consideration of this measure and the 
failure of the United States to make this drug available tells the 
world that the health of Americans is negotiable and subject to the 
will of anti-choice politicians.
  If passed, this amendment would not only compromise the integrity of 
FDA's scientific process, it would open the door for further invasions 
on the drug approval process. More importantly, it would set a very 
dangerous and irrevocable precedent in the medical community.
  Over the past three decades, the face of reproductive health care has 
drastically changed to serve the needs of American women. And for the 
first time in history, a reproductive health drug has the potential to 
benefit not only American women, but to provide more appropriate care 
to millions of Americans. Who are we, Members of Congress, to interfere 
in the face of such immense scientific progress?
  Americans trust that drugs approved by the FDA are safe. Vote ``no'' 
on the Coburn amendment and let the FDA do its job.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Coburn amendment to 
the Agriculture Appropriations bill. I strongly disagree with this 
amendment because it would block the Food and Drug Administration from 
testing, developing, or approving any drug that would induce abortion, 
including RU-486. The Coburn amendment would limit the development of 
the next generation of safer, more effective contraceptives and this is 
wrong.
  Women in America have a right to choose. We must protect this right. 
The goal of this Congress should be to reduce the number of abortions, 
protect the right of women to choose, and to make necessary medical 
choices safe and legal. It is wrong for Congress to tell the FDA to 
approve a particular drug or to disapprove one. Instead, it is the 
FDA's mission to decide whether a drug is ``safe and effective.'' The 
Coburn amendment would make this decision for the FDA and substitute 
Congress' judgement over the judgement of medical professionals.
  We must remember that RU-486 is a product proven to be medically 
safe. After extensive French and United States clinical trials, the FDA 
has determined that it is safe and effective for an early medical 
abortion. For about 20 years RU-486 has been available to Europe's 
women. The effect of this amendment is to ban RU-486 which can be used 
for a nonsurgical abortion. For women for whom surgical abortion poses 
risks or is otherwise inappropriate, the Coburn amendment 
unconstitutionally restricts the right to choose. For women living far 
from clinics, it precludes the possibility of receiving RU-486 in their 
physician's office, again burdening the right to choose. Women have the 
right to choose and I support the current FDA medical approval process.
  We should not trample on the FDA's ability to test, research and 
approve drugs based on sound scientific evidence. We should also 
remember this amendment is not limited to just this one safe and 
effective drug. It is not simply about access to RU-486 alone. It would 
have a dangerous chilling effect on developing other drugs for various 
other medical purposes. Drugs used to treat other conditions including 
cancers and ulcers can induce abortion. This proposed ban could limit 
the FDA's capacity to consider approving these other therapies and 
could force researchers to reject promising treatment opportunities.
  I stand with the American Medical Association; the American College 
of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; and the American Medical Women's 
Association to oppose this amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Coburn amendment and protect a 
woman's right to choose. Vote ``no'' on the Coburn amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 538, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Kaptur

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

       Amendment offered by Ms. Kaptur:
       Page 96, after line 4, insert the following new section:

                TITLE IX--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. __. Within available funds, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture is urged to use ethanol, biodiesel, and other 
     alternative fuels to the maximum extent practicable in 
     meeting the fuel needs of the Department of Agriculture.

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I offer a sense of Congress resolution in 
the form of an amendment concerning ethanol and diesel fuels.
  Mr. Chairman, we all have seen the price of fuel rise across the 
country, spike, and cause businesses and households a great deal of 
economic anxiety this summer. It was but yet another example of our 
overdependence on imported fuels to move this economy.
  There is no one answer to that problem, but obviously we should all 
have a strong, very strong-willed position to move America toward any 
energy independence in our lifetime.
  One of the most important departments to help us do that is the 
Department of Agriculture. In fact, the potential for the expanded use 
of ethanol and biodiesel and biofuels of all kinds using cellulose from 
our fields and forests is absolutely unlimited and it is renewable.
  In addition to that, it is much less polluting. The State of Ohio, 
for example, I think leads the Nation in mixtures that involve ethanol. 
We have shown that research can be done in producing alternative fuels 
that benefit our environment, can actually help our engines burn more 
cleanly, and end our growing dependence.

[[Page 13605]]

  Over 60 percent of the fuel used to power this economy comes from 
foreign sources. It is our major strategic vulnerability.
  USDA has been helping in research, albeit slowly, over the years. We 
are making some progress. The intent of this resolution is to further 
encourage the Secretary of Agriculture to use ethanol, biodiesel, and 
other alternative fuels to the maximum extent practicable in all of 
USDA facilities across the country. There are hundreds.
  One of the areas in which we are successfully working is in the 
district of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) in Beltsville, 
Maryland, at the chief research station in this country to power many 
of the land vehicles, tractors, and cars, used in that major research 
station.
  What we are asking USDA to do in this sense of Congress resolution is 
to exert the maximum effort possible and look at the other sites around 
the country, including cooperative efforts with our land grant 
universities, with other research sites across the country, with the 
headquarters facilities here in Washington, D.C., and really help lead 
America forward and develop the set of connections that can move 
product from the farm into industrial and agricultural use by the end 
user.
  So it is very straightforward, and if we are to be serious about 
alternative fuels, we must use every arrow in our quiver. We are asking 
the USDA to put added muscle behind this in every single facility that 
it operates across the country.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I accept the gentlewoman's amendment, and 
recommend that the House do so, as well.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman. I just wish we could power some of 
those sheep with some ethanol, but we will probably figure out a way to 
do that in the future.
  Mr. SKEEN. We keep them well inoculated, and they do not buy their 
pharmaceuticals from anyplace other than home.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for his support.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 70 Offered by Mr. Gilman

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

       Amendment No. 70 offered by Mr. Gilman:
       Page 85, after line 15, insert the following new section:
       Sec. __. The Secretary of Agriculture shall use $15,000,000 
     of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to provide 
     compensation to producers of onions whose farming operations 
     are located in a county designated by the Secretary as a 
     disaster area for drought in 1999 and who suffered quality 
     losses to their 1999 onion production due to, or related to, 
     drought. Payments shall be made on a per hundredweight basis 
     on each qualifying producer's pre-1996 production of onions, 
     based on the 5-year average market price for yellow onions.

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would require the Secretary of 
Agriculture to use $15 million of the funds of the Commodity Credit 
Corporation to provide compensation to producers of onions who were 
hard hit by drought in the 1999 growing season.
  The reason for this amendment is quite obvious. Onion producers from 
my congressional district in Orange County, New York, have been 
devastated by either drought, wind, or rain 3 out of the past 4 years. 
Making matters worse, the USDA crop insurance program provided little 
or no assistance to these growers.
  I had the opportunity to visit with our onion producers just this 
past week to learn of their outstanding plight. While it is imperative 
that these growers receive adequate assistance in order to survive, I 
will withdraw my amendment, since it is subject to a point of order in 
the House.
  However, I would ask the distinguished chairman of our subcommittee, 
the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), if I could speak with him on 
this important matter.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's concern, and we 
will continue to do our best as the bill proceeds to conference.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman, onion growers 
in Orange County, New York in my congressional district have suffered 
devastating losses 3 out of the past 4 years, 1996, 1998, and 1999. 
They are in desperate need of meaningful assistance. The small sums 
which crop insurance paid to these farmers due to the 1996, 1998 and 
1999 losses failed to provide anything close to minimal relief.
  Accordingly, our farming families continue to lose their farms, 
individuals are uprooted, a traditional way of life is jeopardized, and 
a segment of our national food supply has been further diminished. 
These are the very upheavals which crop insurance was designed 
initially to prevent.
  The USDA has clearly demonstrated its inability to effectively 
deliver needed and equitable crop loss disaster assistance to Orange 
County onion farmers. Repeated and intense communications between the 
Department, my office, and onion producers over the last few years at 
all levels have failed to address any of our concerns.
  USDA officials have stated that the Department does not have a clear 
direction from the Congress on how to proceed with the complicated and 
untraditional issues surrounding the unique situation facing these 
onion growers, including, one, how to compensate for crop quality 
losses; two, reliance on a crop insurance model that cannot adequately 
account for multiyear losses, let alone 3 out of the 4 years; and 
third, how to calculate payment for high-value family farm specialty 
crop businesses.
  Accordingly, I would ask for the chairman's commitment to work with 
me to provide assistance to our onion growers in Orange County, New 
York, who have incurred devastating crop losses due to damaging 
weather-related conditions 3 out of the last 4 years.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
again, I understand the gentleman's concern. We will continue to do our 
best as the bill proceeds to conference.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, while I am sure it will come as no 
surprise, our onion growers in Orange County are proud to receive few 
government subsidies. However, the current plight of these hard-working 
producers threatens the overall fate of our Hudson Valley, our State, 
and Nation's agricultural industry.
  As their representative, I can no longer allow that unique and 
devastating situation to go unnoticed and unassisted, and thus I 
greatly appreciate the gentleman's willingness to work with us on this 
important matter. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. SKEEN. I would tell the gentleman, we will do the very best we 
can on that matter.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Rangel

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Rangel:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section, 
     preceding the short title (page 96, after line 4), the 
     following new title:

                TITLE IX--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 901. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used--
       (1) to implement section 620(a) of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2370(a));
       (2) to exercise the authorities conferred upon the 
     President by section 5(b) of the Trading With the Enemy Act, 
     which were being exercised with respect to Cuba on July 1, 
     1977, as a result of a national emergency

[[Page 13606]]

     declared by the President before that date, and are being 
     exercised on the day before the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, and any regulations in effect on the day before such 
     date of enactment pursuant to the exercise of such 
     authorities;
       (3) to implement any prohibition on exports to Cuba that is 
     in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this 
     Act under the Export Administration Act of 1979;
       (4) to implement the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992, other 
     than section 1705(f) of that Act (relating to direct mail 
     service to Cuba);
       (5) to implement the Cuban Liberty and Democratic 
     Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996, or the amendments made by 
     that Act;
       (6) to implement subparagraph (A) of section 901(j)(2) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to denial of 
     foreign tax credit, etc., with respect to certain foreign 
     countries) with respect to Cuba;
       (7) to implement section 902(c) of the Food Security Act of 
     1985;
       (8) to implement General Note 3(b) of the Harmonized Tariff 
     Schedule of the United States with respect to Cuba; or
       (9) to regulate or prohibit travel to and from Cuba by 
     individuals who are citizens or residents of the United 
     States, or any transactions ordinarily incident to such 
     travel, if such travel would be lawful in the United States.

  Mr. MENENDEZ (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 Jersey?
  There was no objection.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida is recognized on his point 
of order.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order 
against this amendment on the ground that it violates clause 7 of rule 
XVI on the issue of germaneness.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment references a number 9, as a matter of 
fact, programs and/or laws. All of the programs, certainly not even the 
overwhelming majority of them that are referenced, are either 
administered or enforced or regulated or in any way funded by this bill 
that we are considering this evening.
  There is clearly an issue of germaneness, so under clause 7 of rule 
XVI, I raise the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) wish to 
be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. RANGEL. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, it was my understanding that the gentleman 
from Florida was part of an agreement that would allow our farmers to 
export their products to Cuba.
  Mr. Chairman, while it is true that the agreement was supposed to be 
done in conference and not on the floor, I thought I could facilitate 
what he was a party to by merely removing any restrictions that our 
farmers would have to allow them to sell their products. Knowing his 
disdain for communism and his support, I assume, to try to eliminate 
this form of lack of democracy in Cuba, it was the feeling of the House 
that we could attempt to derail the communism that existed in China, 
North Korea, in North Vietnam.
  I just felt that if we have such compassion about trying to instill 
democracy all across Asia, we should have just as much concern about 
the nearness and proximity to my friend's home State, Florida.

                              {time}  1915

  I thought that since the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) was 
party to the agreement that this would allow us at least to do publicly 
on the House floor what so many said was going to be done privately in 
conference.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there another Member that wishes to be heard on this 
point of order?
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be recognized on this point 
of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind Members that they should direct 
their comments to the Chair regarding whether or not the point of order 
should or should not be sustained.
  The gentlewoman from Florida may continue.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Rangel 
amendment, but I support my dear colleague, the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Diaz-Balart) on the various points about why this part of the bill 
should be stricken, why this amendment should be stricken.
  What this amendment is asking our U.S. agencies to do is to look the 
other way when U.S. laws governing trade with the oppressive Castro 
regime are being violated. It does so by prohibiting funds in the act 
from being used for the implementation of various foreign policy and 
national security restrictions.
  This amendment extends far beyond the jurisdiction of the 
appropriations bill by referring to authorities, export controls and 
sanctions imposed under the Foreign Assistance Act, The Trading With 
the Enemy Act, the Export Administration Act, the Cuban Democracy Act, 
and other existing laws whose enforcements are administered by the 
Department of Commerce, the State Department, the Treasury Department 
and sometimes in consultation with the Department of Defense.
  Mr. Chairman, it is ironic that the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel), my good friend, the sponsor of this amendment, who repeatedly 
comes to the floor advocating for greater presidential authority over 
foreign policy and trade matters and seeks a minimal congressional 
involvement in any of these issues would offer an amendment which 
actually restricts the President and issues a congressional mandate 
dictating what the pertinent agencies can and cannot do. So I believe 
that this amendment, which really seeks to change U.S. policy toward 
the brutal Castro dictatorship which rules Cuba with an iron grip by 
circumventing and ignoring the committees of jurisdiction, who have the 
expertise in these issues; without affording those committees an 
opportunity to debate, discuss and offer recommendations.
  Further, Mr. Chairman, the Rangel amendment is in direct conflict 
with the agreement that we had reached a few weeks ago on the sanctions 
issue, an agreement which I believe has received broad range of 
support, and this agreement not only maintains a strong stance against 
Cuba's totalitarian regime, but it also protects American taxpayers 
from bearing the burden of failed loans and poor investments with 
Castro.
  I would hope that the chairman would rule that this is not germane to 
the bill in question.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule, but would inquire, are 
there other Members who wish to be heard specifically on the point of 
order?
  The Chair has been lenient allowing a certain amount of substantive 
debate to creep into this and would be prepared to rule, unless there 
are other Members who wish to be heard on the point of order.
  For what purpose does the gentleman from Minnesota rise?
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for that 
purpose.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleague from New 
York (Mr. Rangel) for bringing up this issue. We have all read of 
numerous hours of negotiations that have been spent on Cuba trade and 
agricultural products. We know that the agricultural appropriations 
bill has been held up for probably a month as a result of negotiations 
behind the scenes. This amendment is an opportunity for us to consider 
on the floor of the House of Representatives this very important issue, 
otherwise, this point of order seeks to force deliberation on this 
amendment into the closed confines of conference committee.
  I urge that the Chairman rule against the point of order so that we 
have openness with respect to the legislative process and so that we 
have an opportunity to consider an amendment that provides a realistic 
opportunity for trade with Cuba rather than a hollow provision which 
will allow for very limited trade with Cuba.

[[Page 13607]]

  Mr. Chairman, I really feel that this particular amendment is the 
only opportunity that this body will have to debate and deliberate on 
the trade with Cuba issue which otherwise is going to be foreclosed to 
this body, we will see something come back from conference committee, 
there will be a rule, which will waive all points of order, and this 
particular debate will be precluded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has the burden of proving 
that the amendment is germane.
  Does the gentleman have additional arguments he would like to make in 
that regard?
  Mr. RANGEL. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) has been 
working on some points that deal with this point of order, and I would 
like to hear from her, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has been quite lenient but asks Members to 
speak to the point of order.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support my colleague from New 
York (Mr. Rangel) on this amendment and certainly believe it to be 
germane. I think it has been correctly stated that there has been a lot 
of backroom dealing going on on this issue. Day in and day out, we have 
heard about all of the antics, all of the various manipulations and 
maneuvering that has gone on only to have surfaced some very, very 
limited trade. One way that would perhaps allow our farmers to sell to 
Cuba, but would, on the other hand, do a lot of damage to the work that 
this President has been doing to help open up discussion and debate and 
to export democracy to Cuba.
  It seems to me that this amendment would take care of some of the 
problems that have been created by my colleagues from the other side of 
the aisle, and I would simply ask that the Chair would recognize that 
and rule in favor of my colleague and the work that he is attempting to 
do.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  For what purpose does the gentleman from New Jersey rise?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, on the point of order if I may.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). I believe his venue here is 
inappropriate.
  For those of us who are not privileged to sit on the Committee on 
Appropriations but who have ranking positions, as I do, on the 
Committee on International Economic Policy and Trade for which 
sanctions issue fall within the jurisdiction of our committee.
  We do not believe that the appropriations bill is the appropriate 
venue for the pursuit. I did not believe that the amendment of the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) in the committee, which was 
legislating an appropriations bill, was appropriate.
  It deprives those of us who have jurisdiction over certain items, if 
that is allowed to move forward, to, therefore, nullify the value of 
our positions; therefore, I think that the amendment is not germane.
  I further think it is an attempt to legislate in an appropriations 
bill, because it talks about travel as well which has nothing to do 
within the appropriations part of this agriculture bill. On the merits, 
of course, I have a strong disagreement with the gentleman, but I 
believe his venue is wrong and I would urge that the Chair rule the 
amendment out of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the amendment.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has the burden of proving 
that the amendment is germane. The preface in the amendment that it is 
confined to funds in the bill is helpful in determining germaneness, so 
long as the listed funding to be prohibited bears some relationship to 
the functions of departments and agencies covered by the bill.
  The Chair is unable to determine any role the covered agencies have 
in carrying out several of the laws mentioned in the amendment. Title 
VIII of the reported bill has been stricken on a point of order and the 
list of sanctions relating to Cuba is no longer in the bill. For this 
reason, the amendment, although in the form of a limitation, does not 
relate in all respects to programs covered by the bill and is not 
germane. The point of order is sustained.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to simply speak on behalf of the amendment that 
was already adopted, which I strongly support, and I want to thank the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for supporting. I also want to thank 
my good friend, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) for 
supporting this as well.
  This dealt with the alternative fuels amendment that was already 
adopted, and the reason I wanted to rise in support of it is because 
for the last 11 months the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, 
which is located in my district and so strongly supported by the 
committee, has been conducting a pilot project using biodiesel. 
Biodiesel, or any of the other alternative fuels, makes sense for two 
reasons, Mr. Chairman. First, because biodiesel is derived vegetable or 
soybean oil it opens another potential market for our Nation's farmers. 
Secondly, biodiesel is good for the environment. It is a renewable 
resource that burns much cleaner than conventional diesel.
  At BARC, they use 80 percent diesel and 20 percent soybean oil mix. 
Their test results found that using biodiesel reduces carbon dioxide 
emissions 16 percent. Now that may have already been mentioned, but it 
bears repeating. Particulate matter, which is a major component of 
smog, is reduced by 22 percent and sulfur emissions are reduced by 20 
percent.
  Mr. Chairman, to date the 143 vehicles in their fleet have used over 
60,000 gallons of biodiesel in their trucks, tractors and buses. They 
have found that maintenance costs are the same as using conventional 
diesel fuel.
  In fact, the mechanics at BARC's motor pool actually prefer using 
biodiesel. Not only does it increase lubrication throughout the engine 
but unlike regular diesel, it does not emit fumes that cause eye 
irritations, a fact that those of us who have been behind buses from 
time to time will think is a pretty good idea.
  I was going to urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment, but I want 
to commend my colleagues for already having done that, but I am pleased 
that I had the opportunity to rise. I congratulate the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for this initiative.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to thank the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for being such a strong supporter of alternative 
fuels and, obviously, with the gentleman's support, the Beltsville 
Research Station, the premiere agricultural research station in the 
country, is leading the rest of the Nation in this important arena.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) 
for his own leadership as a member of the Committee on Appropriations 
in assuring that Beltsville understands the seriousness of this 
Congress in trying to move additional alternative fuels on-line for the 
sake, not just of the Beltsville station, but for the sake of the 
Nation. I want to thank the gentleman for taking the time today to 
place in the Record the actual research, the demonstration and the 
results of what has actually been accomplished at Beltsville.
  Without question, the gentleman is placing a foundation there that 
can be built upon and transferred to other USDA sites, as well as the 
cooperative agreements that USDA can reach with all of our land grant 
universities across the country.
  I just want to thank the gentleman for helping to spur these efforts 
forward and for helping Beltsville lead the rest of the Nation as it 
should.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman 
for her comments and thank her for her leadership. Again, I thank the 
chairman of the committee, the

[[Page 13608]]

gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), my friend, for his leadership as 
well.


                Amendment No. 33 Offered by Mr. Sanford

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

       Amendment No. 33 offered by Mr. Sanford:
       Insert before the short title the following:

                TITLE IX--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 901. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act to the Department of Agriculture may be 
     used to carry out a pilot program under the child nutrition 
     programs to study the effects of providing free breakfasts to 
     students without regard to family income.

  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply gets at funding for 
the school breakfast pilot program. Mr. Chairman, this program was a 3-
year authorization which basically chose six school districts from 
around the country to begin a pilot program looking at the link between 
eating breakfast and performance in school. Last year, $7 million went 
toward that cause, another $6 million is in this bill. This amendment 
goes after $6 million that is currently in the bill.
  I would simply say that common sense would dictate, not another $6 
million, that there is directly a link between having breakfast and 
performance for a young person at school.

                              {time}  1930

  It does not take $13 million to tell us that young folks will do 
better in school after breakfast than without breakfast.
  So I do not think this amendment is at all about the merits of the 
pilot program itself. Rather, I think that what this is about is do we 
want this pilot program to, since we know that is directly a link 
between one's performance and having breakfast, do we want to grow this 
into school breakfast for everybody around the country? For me, the 
answer would be no. Because if one actually looks at the numbers, it 
would cost a full $750 million a year to provide free breakfast for 
every school and every child in school districts across the country. To 
me, that says there is no free breakfast, there is no free lunch. $750 
million is a lot of money.
  Now, the reason I think it is worth looking at is that, if one is 
poor, one is going to get a free breakfast at school. Since 1975, the 
result of basically action taken here in this Congress, poor folks have 
been able to get a free breakfast. In fact, I have a chart here that 
shows participation rates around the country. In South Carolina, 98.9 
percent of school districts offer breakfast. In West Virginia, it is 
98.7. In Idaho, it is 97.8. In Texas, it is 96.8. In Delaware, it is 
96.6.
  I could read the other numbers for each of the other States in the 
Union; but the point is that, in the whole, we are looking at very high 
participation rates for breakfast.
  The point is do we want to have another Federal mandate that says one 
is going to have school breakfast, and again I would say no. The reason 
I say no is that I think we have to take aim at helping folks. I think 
that those in need absolutely should be given a free breakfast. But if 
one is a lawyer, does one need to have a free breakfast for one's 
children? If one is a doctor, does one's children need to get a free 
breakfast? If one is a high-tech zillionaire from Silicon Valley, does 
one's children need to get a free breakfast?
  In fact, if I look at the number of school districts across this 
country, 20 percent of the families who send their kids to public 
schools make in excess of $75,000. Five percent make over $132,000. Do 
we want people from Georgetown County, where per capita income is 
basically a little less than $20,000 a year in South Carolina, 
subsidizing people who make over $132,000 in the purchase of their 
child's breakfast? I would have to say no.
  I as well would just make a point that the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling), the chairman of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce, in the debate that occurred at the 
committee level on this came out on the side of we do not need a 
universal free breakfast program.
  Finally, I want to say that I think that this is the most basic of 
all parental responsibilities. The idea that before one sends one's kid 
off to school that one help them with breakfast, especially if one is 
financially able to do so. This is a place wherein family traditions 
can be passed along, family history can be passed along, have you done 
your homework can be passed along. A lot of other normal family 
questions can occur at the breakfast table. So handing this off to 
school districts to me would be a mistake on that basis as well.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in absolute opposition to the Sanford amendment, 
which would prohibit the Department of Agriculture from completing the 
School Breakfast Demonstration pilot project.
  The School Breakfast Demonstration program is a scientific study to 
measure the effect of providing breakfast at school free of charge to 
all children, regardless of income, on a broad range of student 
outcomes, including grades, attendance, tardiness, and also behavior 
and concentration.
  Mr. Chairman, yes, we should be providing breakfast for all of our 
children at their homes in the morning. But we are sure that parents in 
this busy world we are living in are commuting long hours, they are 
working long hours, and they leave the house before their children have 
had breakfast. Every child needs to go to school ready to learn on a 
full stomach.
  The Meals for Achievement Act that I authored has already received 
half of its needed funding. The first $7 million was appropriated last 
year. The program is already under way. After a nationwide competition, 
six school districts have been chosen to participate.
  As we debate, these school districts across the country representing 
a wide variety of schools, school districts, and students are already 
setting up their programs. Why would we today take that funding away 
from them?
  Mr. Chairman, as a Nation, we are searching for answers to the many 
challenges our schools and our children face. Numerous studies, 
including one by Harvard University and Massachusetts General Hospital, 
show that children who eat breakfast improve both their grades and 
their behavior in school. But I can assure my colleagues, if I came to 
this floor and said to them that it is absolute that children who eat 
breakfast do better in school, one would say to me prove it.
  I want a scientific study, and I want that study to be a government, 
a Federal Government-paid and -monitored study. That is why we need to 
do this pilot program.
  But because children need to have breakfast is one of the reasons why 
many school districts and some in my district provide breakfast at 
school to all of their students on the mornings before standardized 
testing.
  In today's world, if a child is lucky enough to have two parents 
living at home, chances are that both parents are working and commuting 
long hours. More and more parents are out the door on the road early in 
the morning with no time to sit down to breakfast. That does not mean 
they cannot afford breakfast. It means these children do not eat 
breakfast because there is nobody there to insist that they do.
  The breakfast program is voluntary. Nobody has to go to school and 
eat breakfast. It will be available for all children no matter when and 
if they want to eat breakfast.
  Whether we like it or not, many children do not eat; and they do 
arrive at school hungry. And when they are hungry, they are not ready 
to learn.
  So unless we want to pass a law requiring every family to ensure 
their kids eat breakfast before school, and then hire a bunch of 
breakfast police to enforce our law, we need to understand the benefits 
of a universal school breakfast program.
  That is why we must allow the Department of Agriculture to use the 
funds included in this bill to complete the School Breakfast 
Demonstration program. Along with most educators and scientists, I 
believe that previous

[[Page 13609]]

experience and studies will hold true and that the School Breakfast 
Demonstration program will prove once again that school breakfast is 
not a welfare program, it is an education program that will benefit all 
students.
  Just as we do not charge the wealthy students for their books and 
their computers because they can afford it, we must not charge students 
for breakfast. Because like a book or a computer, breakfast is a 
learning tool, a tool that must be made available to all.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I want to 
commend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) for her great 
leadership on assuring that every child in this country obtains proper 
nutrition. Obviously, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) 
represents a different area of the country than I might coming from 
northwest Ohio or the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), the 
author of the amendment.
  However, I can tell my colleagues, even in my own district, some of 
the most instructive people one can speak with are the food service 
workers in our schools. It is very shocking to go into some of the 
schools and to talk to these food service workers who tell us about a 
young child that comes in on a Monday morning who has not eaten all 
weekend and who asks permission to eat two school breakfasts because he 
or she has not had a decent meal all weekend. It is sad to think that 
that can happen in America; but in fact, it is happening every day. I 
am sure in some communities it is happening more than in other places.
  I think as we use the school breakfast program to try to make sure 
that every child in these early years receives proper nutrition, and 
maybe that is a mothering role and so maybe the women of America feel 
more strongly about it, I think it is important to recognize that we 
need to understand how to make these programs work better to make sure 
that we are providing proper nutrition, to really understand which 
children may not be getting proper nutrition and what we can do about 
it.
  Hopefully, every child would get the food they need at home; but we 
know that that just is not the case in today's world with people 
working two and three shifts, different jobs, split shifts, all the 
rest. Sometimes just finding family time for dinner is difficult in 
today's world. That is not the world I grew up in, but it is the world 
that so many families deal with today.
  The money that we initially provided for this study totaled $7 
million; and, in fact, the study is under way. The remaining $6 million 
that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) and others have 
supported is coming from transferring monies out of the WIC program, 
the Women, Infants and Children's feeding program that are carrying 
over balances that are not needed because we are being successful with 
enrollment in that program, taking great care to be sure that 
sufficient dollars do remain in the WIC program.
  Nothing is more important than a good meal with proper nutrition for 
the learning ability of children. When they do not eat enough and they 
do not eat properly, they get tired. Their brains do not grow fast 
enough. Their early years are absolutely critical in producing a child 
that can fully function in this society.
  So I would urge defeat of the amendment of the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Sanford) and again compliment the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey) for her outstanding leadership and her great 
heart on making sure that every child in America grows to their full 
potential, beginning with good nutrition.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, hunger is an issue many in America would 
prefer to ignore.
  This amendment is about hunger.
  This amendment is about making sure all of our children have a hearty 
meal and a healthy start as they begin the school day.
  There is evidence of hunger in 3.6 percent of all households in 
America.
  Close to four million children are hungry.
  Fourteen million children--twenty percent of the population of 
children--live in food insecure homes.
  In food insecure homes, meals are skipped, or the size of meals is 
reduced.
  More than ten percent of all households in America are food insecure.
  Because there is such hunger and food insecurity, there is also 
infant mortality, growth stunting, iron deficiency, anemia, poor 
learning, and increased chances for disease.
  Because there is such hunger and food insecurity, the poor are more 
likely to remain poor, the hungry are more likely to remain hungry.
  It seems strange that we must fight for food for those who can not 
fight for themselves.
  It really is time to stop picking on the poor.
  Less than 3 percent of the budget goes to feed the hungry.
  It is for those reasons we must soundly and solidly reject this ill-
advised amendment.
  Currently, Mr. Chairman, the Agriculture appropriations bill includes 
$6 million to complete the School Breakfast Program Demonstration 
program.
  Last year, $7 million was appropriated for the project, and school 
districts have been chosen to participate.
  It is imprudent, unwise and injudicious to discontinue this study at 
this time.
  This project will give us the information we need to determine if 
providing breakfast at school for all children is a sound investment 
for federal dollars.
  The link between eating breakfast and improved learning and behavior 
is already well established.
  Students who eat breakfast do better on tests.
  Students who eat breakfast make better grades.
  Breakfast is a learning tool, just like books and computers.
  We cannot prepare our children for the future if we insist upon 
policies that relegate them to the past.
  And, we cannot protect and preserve our communities, if we do not 
adequately provide the most basic commodity for living--something to 
eat.
  Nutrition programs are essential to the well-being of millions of our 
children.
  These are citizens who often cannot provide for themselves and need 
help for existence.
  They do not ask much.
  Just a little help to sustain them through the day.
  Just a little help to keep them alert in class and productive in 
their lives.
  Food for all, especially our children, is worth fighting for.
  Reject this Sanford amendment.
  It is not worthy of our support.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by Congressman Sanford to H.R. 4461, the Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act for 2001. This amendment would prohibit the use of 
funds to complete a pilot project under which all children will receive 
free school breakfasts, regardless of income.
  I am a long-time proponent of child nutrition programs, but I also 
believe we must focus funding on those children in greatest need to 
services.
  The universal breakfast pilot project is based on the premise that 
children who do not eat at school don't eat breakfast and that more 
children would eat breakfast at school if all children could eat for 
free.
  Mr. Chairman, any school that wants to participate in the school 
breakfast program with federal reimbursements can do so, and all 
children are eligible for participation. However, in contrast to a 
universal breakfast program, only low-income children are eligible for 
free meals.
  The school breakfast program has grown tremendously over the past 
years. In 1980, approximately 33,000 schools served breakfast. In 1990, 
approximately 43,000 schools participated. This year, approximately 
74,000 schools did. The number of children participating in breakfast 
programs has increased as well. During the past 10 years the number of 
children receiving school breakfasts rose 88 percent, climbing from 4 
million to 7.5 million
  Over 85 percent of low-income children enrolled in elementary school 
attend a school offering the breakfast program. This is an important 
fact because there are more breakfast programs in elementary than 
secondary schools. As a results, the opportunity to participate in a 
breakfast program is available to the majority of low-income children 
in elementary schools.
  Mr. Chairman, I doubt there is any member in this body who would 
disagree with the fact that breakfast is an important meal for 
children. It helps provide them the energy they need to perform will in 
school. We do not

[[Page 13610]]

need to prove this through a demonstration program.
  What is under debate is who is responsible for feeding our nation's 
children. While I believe it is important that all children have an 
opportunity to participate in a school breakfast program, I also think 
the primary responsibility for feeding children lies with their 
parents.
  Any proposal to make school breakfast free to children at all income 
levels in all schools would primarily subsidize middle and upper income 
children who do not need a free breakfast.
  One reason children do not participate in the breakfast program to 
the extent they participate in the lunch program is that many children 
eat breakfast at home with their families. This is not usually an 
option for lunch. Why would we want to encourage children to eat at 
school when they can spend valuable time with their parents?
  If the argument in support of a universal breakfast program is that 
it will reduce the number of children who are missing breakfast, large 
research evaluations funded by the USDA in the early 1990s do not 
support that contention. Studies show that 94 percent of children in 
kindergarten through third grade already eat breakfast and that the 
presence of school breakfast does not increase this number.
  I have opposed the funding of this pilot project from the beginning 
and continue to oppose it. It is not needed. We have a school breakfast 
program that is available to the majority of low-income children. Other 
children can participate if they want to do so.
  At every opportunity, we should encourage children and parents to 
share meals together.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to particularly thank Mr. Sanford for the 
forethought and commitment to have us stop moving forward on an effort 
that is unnecessary and I think unwise. All a universal breakfast 
program does is increase the federal budget and reduce quality time 
between parents and children. I encourage my colleagues to support the 
Sanford amendment. We do not need this pilot project.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 538, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Sanford) will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


                Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

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

       Amendment No. 26 offered by Mr. DeFazio:
       Insert at the end of the bill (before the short title) the 
     following:

                TITLE IX--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 901. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     not more than $28,684,000 of the funds made available in this 
     Act may be used for Wildlife Services Program operations 
     under the heading ``Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
     Service'', and none of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this Act for Wildlife Services Program 
     operations to carry out the first section of the Act of March 
     2, 1931 (7 U.S.C. 426), may be used to conduct campaigns for 
     the destruction of wild predatory mammals for the purpose of 
     protecting livestock.

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) reserves a 
point of order.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, may I ask, does the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Skeen) intend to pursue his point of order, because in the 
interest of time, if he does, I will offer a different amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
amendment No. 26.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


                Amendment No. 39 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

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

       Amendment No. 39 offered by Mr. DeFazio:
       Insert before the short title the following:

                TITLE IX--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 901. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     not more than $28,684,000 of the funds made available in this 
     Act may be used for Wildlife Services Program operations 
     under the heading ``Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
     Service'', and none of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this Act for Wildlife Services Program 
     operations to carry out the first section of the Act of March 
     2, 1931 (7 U.S.C. 426), may be used to conduct campaigns for 
     the destruction of wild animals for the purpose of protecting 
     stock.

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes evenly 
divided between the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and myself.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, we have debated this amendment before. Actually, this 
amendment passed the House this fiscal year 1999 but was narrowly 
defeated on a reconsideration vote after powerful special interests 
weighed in with howls of protest, false sense, and red herrings.
  Well, first, let us dispense with the false arguments that we will 
hear tonight from the gentleman from Texas and others. This is not 
about public health and safety. Children in school yards will be safe 
whether or not this amendment passes. It does not go to the issue of 
wildlife that presents a public health and safety issue. It is not 
about dusky geese. It is not about brown tree snakes in Hawaii. It is 
not about airplanes falling from the sky after bird strikes.

                              {time}  1945

  None of those activities of the Animal Damage Control agency, now 
called Wildlife Services, would be affected by this amendment. It is 
not about tuberculosis and deer in the Midwest. We will hear all those 
things. It is not about that.
  It is about one thing and one thing only. One specific program that 
is reserved for private ranching interests in the western United 
States. A program of subsidies to those ranchers. A program that is not 
available to any other member of the public who has a particular 
problem with wildlife on their property. It is only available to the 
ranchers.
  It is an ineffective, indiscriminate program shooting, trapping, 
poisoning wildlife that has been promoted by ADC, which now calls 
themselves Wildlife Services. And this is, again, unlike their 
indiscriminate ineffective program, a very specific target, eliminate 
the $7 million a year subsidy. That would reduce the bill to the 
funding recommended by the President, which would fully meet all of the 
obligations to protect public health and safety and other duties of 
that agency except for the subsidized program which goes on to private 
ranch lands, benefits Sam Donaldson and others.
  They have spent millions of dollars on this program, and there are 
more coyotes today than there were when the program began. They do not 
understand coyote biology. When they kill the alpha male and female, 
they end up with more coyotes spread over a wider range, which is 
exactly what has happened. They have managed to kill people's pets. 
They have managed to kill, unfortunately, human beings from plane 
crashes with the aerial gunning program.
  Nothing in this amendment would prevent those same ranchers, who are 
subsidized by Federal taxpayers, from hiring someone or doing it 
themselves by any legal means to protect their livestock. They can do 
it themselves. Nothing in this amendment would prevent that. But it 
would say that they

[[Page 13611]]

no longer will have the luxury of calling for a Federal employee to 
come upon their land to take care of their private wildlife problems. 
It will be up to them to pay for it themselves, to hire someone to do 
it for them.
  That is the gist of this amendment. It is an amendment of great 
merit. It has passed the House before, and I recommend Members support 
it.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to make two points in regard to the 
amendment. First, the reason the committee has recommended funding 
Wildlife Services above the administration's level is because of 
requests from Members of this body. In fact, if we had the budget to 
accommodate all requests, the number would be much higher.
  I would also point out that the committee recommendation also 
includes $1 million for aviation safety that was requested by the USDA 
officials after the budget submission. Sadly, Mr. Chairman, again this 
year APHIS suffered a plane crash that killed two people working for 
Wildlife Services. The USDA is in the second year of upgrading its 
aviation safety program and this budget is where that money comes from.
  My second point, Mr. Chairman, is the issue of fairness. Livestock 
producers benefit from the APHIS program, and so do many other sectors. 
What is the point in singling out one group? Why not take away the 
funds used to protect fish farms or oilseed producers from migratory 
birds? Why not make the States and the cattle industry assume the full 
cost of the brucellosis program? Why not make the State of Hawaii and 
its tourism industry assume the full cost of protection from the brown 
tree snake? Let the States assume the full cost of rabies eradication 
and let the airlines and local airports assume the full cost of 
protection from bird strikes.
  What I am saying to the vast majority of Members of this body whose 
districts benefit from Wildlife Services programs is that it is unfair 
to single out or attempt to single out one sector of one industry when 
so many others benefit.
  In closing, I strongly recommend a ``no'' vote on this amendment. It 
will not achieve its purported purposes. It will endanger the health 
and welfare of people and animals alike. It is opposed by the States 
the sponsors represent. Contrary to recent assertions, it will have 
far-reaching and negative effects upon the Wildlife Services authority.
  The sponsor should play it straight up and offer an amendment to do 
away with all lethal predator control. But they know it would never 
pass the House, so they attack one part of American agriculture that 
they have no use for. Oppose this amendment and let us get back to the 
real business of the House.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oregon for 
yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of the pending 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to make five points. Number one, the 
wildlife methods of predator control are ineffective and wasteful. From 
1983 to 1993, the amount of money that has been spent on this program 
has gone up by 71 percent, kills have gone up by 30 percent, and there 
is no significant reduction in the predator population.
  Number two. Taxpayers should not be responsible for subsidizing 
predator control. As my friend from Oregon said when he spoke, not one 
word in this amendment would in any way impact a rancher's ability to 
shoot or control livestock on his or her property. All it says is that 
the taxpayers of this country are not going to subsidize gunning of 
predators on these ranches out in the West.
  Thirdly, the Wildlife Services methods for predator control are 
inhumane. All we have to do is see footage of films of these 
helicopters and aircraft speeding low across the range with people with 
guns shooting indiscriminately from one end to the other. It is 
inhumane and it is dangerous.
  My colleagues will hear and see the same posters that we have seen 
for years now, getting a little bit dog-eared, of the wolf chasing the 
little white sheep. They are gruesome pictures. What they do not show 
are the seven humans who have been killed in aviation accidents 
associated with gunning these animals down. These individuals ride in 
these helicopters and aircraft with their rifles shooting from the 
aircraft, which by the way, is a violation of FAA regulations.
  I guess the fourth point is that alternative methods of predator 
control do exist. They do exist. We do not have to support a program 
where we take taxpayers' funds and use them to kill animals in a 
program that has never really worked, and all it really constitutes in 
the end is a subsidy to large western ranchers.
  I urge support of the pending amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Bonilla).
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in strong opposition to the DeFazio amendment.
  This is amazing, this debate, and what kind of rhetoric is being 
tossed around this Chamber. The Wildlife Services program is violating 
Federal law in the air? FAA regulations? Give us a break.
  These accusations that the program is inhumane. The accusations that 
it is not focused and that innocent wildlife are somehow caught in the 
cross-fire. The accusation that because there are more coyotes today, 
and there are, that it is a direct result of this program?
  Those who are going to stand up and propose this amendment ought to 
at least stick to the facts. I have a fact here and a photo to prove 
how if we do not participate in this program, this inhumane activity 
will occur. These are several sheep in Oregon that were destroyed 
earlier on in a brutal way, as my colleagues can see from the photo, by 
wild coyotes who were roaming this area. This is the kind of 
inhumaneness that we are trying to stop. It is not only inhumane, it is 
of great cost to producers and farmers and ranchers around the country.
  All of those who are standing up with this false rhetoric right now 
should perhaps consider, as they look at this photograph, about 
rewriting the nursery rhyme ``Mary Had a Little Lamb'' and we failed to 
protect it. That is what should rest on the consciences of those who 
would eliminate this very important program that promotes humaneness, 
is cost effective, and very important to farmers and ranchers around 
this country.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy 
in yielding me this time, and I of course am horrified by the picture 
of the slaughtered sheep that was shown here.
  But let us talk for a moment about why this is offered. And I would 
suggest to my colleague from Texas that it is not superheated rhetoric. 
I would have invited him to go to Clackamas County, just outside of 
Portland, in my district, for a tragic incident a few months ago where 
the Wildlife Services agent placed a cluster of canisters of sodium 
cyanide on the land of a tree farmer. These so-called M-44 devices, 
once triggered, explode and release sodium cyanide gas several feet in 
the air. If sodium cyanide makes contact with the mucus membrane of an 
animal, touching the mouths, eyes, or nose, the animal will suffer a 
miserable death.
  On a tree farm in Estacada, a family pet, a German Shepherd named 
Buddy, made the fatal mistake of stumbling across an M-44 loaded with 
sodium cyanide. I will not show my colleagues the picture of Buddy, his 
face dried with blood and foam caked on his face. But what if that 
canister had been dealt with by a child instead of a German Shepherd?
  Currently, in my State, citizens have gathered 103,976 signatures to 
place on a Statewide ballot a measure to restrict the use of inhumane 
traps and poison. They do not want the USDA personnel setting out land 
mines on

[[Page 13612]]

their private or public lands. These traps set by the Wildlife Services 
are just as dangerous as the poison.
  Dozens of people in the State of Oregon have come forward to tell of 
their tragic experiences with steel-jawed traps, leghold traps, neck 
snares, and Conibear traps.
  A chief copetitioner of the Oregon ballot measure is Jennifer 
Kirkpatrick, from the rural community of Scappoose, who has the story 
of being in a stream and had the misfortune of having her hand caught 
in the vice-like grip of one of these traps, a device set out in the 
water to crush the vertebrae of beaver, muskrat, or otter that swims 
into it. She indicated it was the most excruciating pain she had ever 
endured.
  Because the trap was so large and powerful, she could not free her 
hand, with the trap crushing it. I think we can all imagine a car door 
slammed on our hand. She had to walk a quarter mile to her car and then 
drive several miles to a neighbor's home. The neighbor struggled 15 
minutes to pry open that trap. She experienced a near complete loss of 
the use of her hand for 9 years. And being a seamstress, she was out of 
work and feared that her career would be over.
  No place in Oregon, nor any other place in the West, is a logical 
area for the widespread use of these horrific traps and poisons at 
taxpayer expense. This amendment helps correct the problem. It does not 
stop private individuals who want to protect their livestock as they 
see fit. It simply requires the ranchers to assume the responsibility 
if they want to use these lethal weapons. I strongly urge approval of 
the amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) that the Committee do now rise.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
request.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the motion to rise is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) controls 11 
minutes and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) controls 7 minutes.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
DeFazio amendment again this year, and for the basic same reasons we 
have in the past. There is a lot of misinformation about what this 
amendment does and does not do.
  And I concede the point to the gentleman, and all of those who are 
proposing this amendment, that they are opposed to killing of wolves 
and coyotes and other animals that do great damage to American 
agriculture. I concede that point. But from the standpoint of what this 
amendment does, I think it is important to understand, first off, that 
the Wildlife Services program is a highly specialized organization 
within the United States Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Service. Wildlife Services uses, uses now, contrary 
to the previous Speaker, integrated wildlife management techniques and 
strategies to minimize the negative impacts of wildlife on livestock 
and crops, human health and safety, property, and threatened and 
endangered species.

                              {time}  2000

  If this amendment were to pass, the $7 million, the DeFazio amendment 
would redirect the $10 million in additional funds by prohibiting their 
use for livestock protection programs. Because of the cooperative 
nature of this program, a $7 million cut and a redirection of funds 
actually results in a total loss in the program of $23.7 million.
  Now, this also will knock out $2 million of the bill's appropriated 
funds to increase wildlife services that will be dealing with the 
rabies control program and collaborations. The DeFazio amendment would 
not only cause a loss of $2 million for this important program, but 
would also cause an additional loss of cooperative money by local 
sponsors.
  The funding for these wildlife professionals provides the basis that 
allows the State to devote funds for permanent personnel to perform all 
of the duties of animal control. By limiting the duties that wildlife 
professionals perform, we undermine the entire program.
  Please oppose this misguided amendment.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the DeFazio-
Bass-Morella amendment. What this amendment does is it would simply cut 
$7 million from the Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Services 
program, which would bring their budget to $28.7 million, as requested 
by the administration.
  Wildlife Services spends millions of dollars annually to kill more 
than 100,000 coyotes, foxes, bears, mountain lions, and other predators 
in the Western United States. Although non-lethal alternatives do 
exist, Wildlife Services chooses to shoot, poison, trap and even club 
to death both target and non-target animals.
  This is a taxpayer subsidy, as has been mentioned; and this taxpayer 
subsidy gives ranchers a disincentive to seek alternative methods of 
livestock protection that might be far more effective.
  The USDA predator control methods are non-selective, they are 
inefficient, they are inhumane. Aerial gunning, sodium cyanide 
poisoning, steel-jawed leghold traps and neck snares are all common 
methods used by Wildlife Services. These techniques have been known to 
kill pets, as well as endangered and threatened species. Much of the 
killing is conducted before livestock is released into an area, with 
the expectation that predators will become a problem. However, killing 
wildlife to protect livestock is effective only if the individual 
animals who attack livestock are removed. Targeting the entire 
population is needlessly cruel, it wastes taxpayer dollars, and it can 
be counterproductive.
  With this amendment, the Wildlife Services program could leave intact 
the research, education, and exchange of new information on wildlife 
damage management and non-lethal methods. Programs would also be funded 
to assist with non-lethal predator protection services and in cases to 
protect human and endangered species lives.
  Reducing the proposed budget of Wildlife Services to the 
administration's request would send the message, would send the 
message, that efforts must be made to implement humane methods of 
protecting livestock. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Walden).
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Texas earlier 
used a little better quality shot of this. My colleague from Maryland 
who just spoke talked about how we need more humane protection of 
livestock. Let me tell the gentlewoman from Maryland about this 
picture. Let me tell about this picture.
  Twenty-eight sheep were killed in one night by cougars. There were 
guard dogs, four of them, guarding these sheep. There were sheep 
herders on site when Sky Crebbs, a rancher in my district, ended up 
with this kill. This photo is so gruesome, I covered these up. My 
colleague from Texas did not do that. But it is so gruesome, I covered 
them up.
  This is not unusual. I want to enter into the record, Mr. Chairman, a 
letter from Phil Ward, who is the head of the Oregon Department of 
Agriculture. It says: ``According to a recent survey conducted by the 
Oregon Agricultural

[[Page 13613]]

Statistics Service, more than $158 million of annual damage to Oregon 
agricultural products occurs from wildlife.''
  All across my district, Mr. Speaker, we are seeing more and more 
incidents of predator problems: 144 pets were killed in Oregon in 1997, 
165 in 1998, and 203 in 1999.
  Let me share with you some headlines out of our local newspapers: 
``Agents track cougar that tussled with man.''
  ``Cougar attacks and kills colt. Upset rancher threatens suit.''
  ``Cougars come home to town.''
  ``Calls from residents rise as the once elusive cat grows.''
  ``Annie Hoye figured raccoons had gotten into an attached shed last 
spring when a banging against the side of the house woke her early one 
morning. But that afternoon she found the eviscerated carcass of a deer 
in her backyard. `It must have been about how farmers feel when they 
find a mutilated cow and blame it on aliens,' she said.''
  ``Cougar shot in La Grande neighborhood.''
  ``Cougar seen in Ashland still around.''
  ``Elk herds continue nose-dive because of predators.''
  ``USDA employee kills big cougar out at Cottage Grove.'' My friend 
and colleague from the fourth district may be interested in this one: 
``A 7-foot 5\1/2\ inch male weighing 135 pounds was tracked down and 
shot after it killed its 30th sheep on a ranch near Elkton.''
  This is a serious problem if you are in a rural district like mine, 
with 70,000 square miles. Part of the problem is the Federal Government 
is the landlord of over half that land.
  So I believe these people, who pay taxes and farm and ranch in this 
country, have the right to expect that the neighbor, the Federal 
Government on over 55 percent of the land, has an obligation to help 
manage this.
  That is why, with predators on the rise, we should not be cutting 
funds. We should be using as many non-lethal efforts as possible, but 
that is not always possible. When you get a 7-foot cougar that has 
killed its 30th lamb, it is time for action before it kills a person.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the letter referred to above for the Record.

                                    Department of Agriculture,

                                          Salem, OR, May 19, 2000.
     Hon. Joe Skeen,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Skeen: Early next week the House of 
     Representatives will vote on appropriations for the U.S. 
     Department of Agriculture and related agencies.
       I urge your support for full funding of the USDA-APHIS 
     Wildlife Services programs. The Oregon Department of 
     Agriculture works in cost-sharing and program relationships 
     with USDA Wildlife Services to address the concerns of 
     wildlife damage to agriculture crops in Oregon. Many 
     producers also provide cost-share for the use of this 
     program.
       According to a recent survey conducted by the Oregon 
     Agricultural Statistics Service, more than $158 million of 
     annual damage to Oregon agricultural products occurs from 
     wildlife.
       APHIS/Wildlife Services also provides services through 
     cooperative agreements with thousands of entities nationwide, 
     including state game and fish agencies, state departments of 
     health, city and local governments, school districts, 
     colleges, airports, the U.S. military, Indian tribes, 
     National Wildlife Refuges, departments of transportation, 
     homeowner associations, electrical companies and many other 
     parties.
       I strongly request that you oppose any reduction in 
     funding, and fully support adequate increases for necessary 
     staffing and program costs.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Phillip C. Ward,
     Director.
                                  ____



                              State Department of Agriculture,

                                   Salem, Oregon, May 18-19, 2000.

 Board of Agriculture Opposes Any Reduction to the USDA-APHIS Wildlife 
                            Services Budget

       Whereas agriculture is a leading economic force in Oregon 
     and the United States, and
       Whereas the Wildlife Damage Survey identified in excess of 
     $158 million of annual damage to Oregon agricultural 
     products, and
       Whereas agricultural producers implement $6 million of 
     wildlife damage prevention efforts themselves and still 
     require professional assistance from USDA-APHIS Wildlife 
     Services, and
       Whereas USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services delivers services to 
     minimize the impact of wildlife damage which are vital to 
     agriculture and to all segments of the population.
       Be it resolved that the Oregon State Board of Agriculture 
     opposes any reduction to the USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services 
     budget.

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) has 4\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) has 6 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, if I could inquire on the time, I yielded 
myself 3 minutes, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) 3 minutes, 
the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) 2 minutes, and the 
gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) 3 minutes.
  How did we get that one-half minute in there?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) did not 
consume the entire amount of time and yielded back one-half minute.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Deutsch).
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment where hopefully all 
of my colleagues will spend a little bit of time understanding the 
specifics of the amendment. It is an amendment which truly is very 
simple when we understand it and we look at the specifics of the 
amendment.
  The specifics of the amendment deal with a corporate welfare program 
that exists in the United States of America as bad as any corporate 
welfare program that exists in this country. It specifically applies to 
ranchers, specifically to a function that there is no justifiable 
policy reason that taxpayers across this country should be subsidizing 
these ranchers. That is the program. That is what we are talking about.
  We are not talking about whether or not coyotes should exist or 
whether or not ranchers should have the ability to do animal control. 
That is not what this amendment is about. What this amendment is about 
is taxpayer money being spent on a private function without a public 
purpose. That is what it is about, and that is why I urge the adoption 
of the amendment.
  In a sort of Hobson effect, though, this is a program which is not 
even effective, which is one of the weird things about this; that there 
are in fact more effective ways to deal with animal control that have 
been done in many places without the use and the methods that are used 
by the Animal Damage Control program.
  This is a program that the public holds in poor regard because it 
reflects a callous attitude and a waste of taxpayers' dollars. This 
program amounts to nothing more than corporate welfare. I urge the 
adoption of the amendment.
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong 
support of the amendment sponsored by the gentleman from Oregon to 
decrease funding by $7 million for the Department of Agriculture's 
Wildlife Services program.
  This program is costly, unnecessary, inhumane, dangerous and 
continues to expand eliminating any landowner incentive to control 
predators through other more cost-effective and humane measures.
  The predator control program is not cost-effective and its funding 
has increased to almost $10 million annually. Sheep and cattle killed 
by predators could be replaced at one-third the cost the government 
spends in trying to control predators. These predatory control methods 
are dangerous for the animals, but some of the forms of predatory 
control such as aerial gunning are also high risk to Wildlife Service 
employees. Since 1996, six employees have been killed in four 
helicopter and plane crashes, the most recent occurred on March 27, 
2000.
  Ranchers should be taking care of predator control problems 
themselves. This amendment would not prevent ranchers and farmers from 
doing so. Currently, because of the federal subsidy, ranchers are 
discouraged from using more effective, humane, less-costly, and non-
lethal methods such as guard dogs, electric sound and light devices, or 
predator exclusion fencing. There is no incentive for ranchers to use 
these types of control methods because the government is paying to kill 
the wild animals which attack these farmers' livestock. I don't object 
to farmers and ranchers protecting

[[Page 13614]]

their property but I do object to the federal government paying for it.
  Again, this program is costly, unnecessary, inhumane, and dangerous. 
I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
DeFazio-Bass-Morella amendment to the Agriculture Appropriations bill.
  While I know the Wildlife Services engage in a number of valuable 
programs to mitigate human-wildlife conflicts, such as the bird control 
program at Denver International Airport, I am troubled by the reckless 
and seemingly inhumane procedures undertaken by this agency.
  The most disturbing, not to mention dangerous, Wildlife Services 
endeavor is the Aerial Hunting Campaign. Over the past 10 years, 31 
people have been injured, 7 of them fatally, in Wildlife Services 
aircraft accidents. Low altitude, low speed flying in remote areas is 
invariably high risk. To me this seems like a hazardous and costly way 
to go about predator control. As if that was not enough, Aerial Gunning 
does not help reduce livestock losses because it does not target 
offending animals, predators that we know are feeding on livestock.
  For my colleagues who are not swayed by the disturbing, twisted 
excesses of the Wildlife Services program, I encourage you to look at 
the flawed economics behind this program. For every dollar of reported 
livestock damage, the Wildlife Services spends three dollars in the 
West to fix the problem.
  The DeFazio-Bass amendment offered today is less punitive than 
amendments offered in previous years. It allows the agency to retain 
adequate funding, but compels the program to use tax dollars to kill 
the public's wildlife through a subsidy for private ranchers.
  I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. 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. 
Walden of Oregon) having assumed the chair, Mr. Nussle, 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. 4461) 
making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________