[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13759-13785]
[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}  1245


                     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 rose on Monday, July 
10, 2000, pending was amendment No. 39 by the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. DeFazio).
  Pursuant to the order of the House of that day, no further amendments 
to the bill shall be in order except pro forma amendments offered by 
the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations or 
their designees for the purpose of debate and amendments printed in the 
Congressional Record numbered 9, 29, 32, 37, 48, 61, and 68, which may 
be offered only by the Member designated in the order of the House or a 
designee, or the Member who caused it to be printed or a designee, 
shall be considered read, shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally 
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a 
division of the question.
  Eight and one-half minutes of debate remain on amendment No. 39 by 
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio). The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Skeen) has 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with 
the primary author of the amendment, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio).
  I want to be clear, in light of my responsibilities on the 
Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations, that the recovery programs for 
threatened and endangered species conducted by the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service will not be adversely affected.
  It is my understanding that the gentleman does not intend to impede 
recovery programs directed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 
sometimes performed in part by the Wildlife Services.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, it is not my intent to impede recovery 
programs for threatened or endangered species administered by the Fish 
and Wildlife Service.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I want to emphasize 
that when these rare killings of threatened or endangered species do 
occur, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Wildlife Services 
should only use the most humane method of killing, such as shooting or 
foot snares with tranquilizer tabs.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will again yield, I agree 
that the Fish and Wildlife Service and Wildlife Services should use the 
most humane methods in the conduct of their responsibilities under the 
Endangered Species Act.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from New Mexico 
yielding.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, this may be the most ill-conceived amendment that we 
have considered during debate on this bill.
  Some have called this nothing more than corporate welfare. Well, I 
will tell my colleagues that in Idaho, Wyoming and Montana, what the 
Federal Government has done, at a cost of $1 million apiece, is they 
have reintroduced wolves into the State of Idaho as ``nonessential 
experimental populations.'' They are costing ranchers and farmers 
thousands and thousands of dollars. Not only are they costing ranchers 
and farmers money, they are decimating our elk and deer herds.
  Ranchers would like to take care of this problem themselves. 
Unfortunately, there are substantial penalties and fines involved. It 
has been said that the Fish and Wildlife Service does not use other 
nonlethal means of trying to maintain control of these predators. The 
fact is that we capture them, we trap them, we have taken them to other 
parts of the State, as far away as 300 and 400 miles; and we find that 
within 2, 3, 4 days, a week, they are back in their original location, 
oftentimes.
  In fact, last week I was in Idaho in the Saw Tooth Mountains, and I 
bought this book; and I would like to take just a moment to reintroduce 
my colleagues or introduce my colleagues to the Saw Tooth pack of 
wolves in the State of Idaho. Now, I have to admit, these are beautiful 
animals. In fact, if we look at this page here, this is their class 
picture in the nice, soft focus. This is Komoto, the alpha leader. He 
is regal, confident and benevolent. This here is Moto. He is of middle 
rank. He is bright, curious and energetic. He also initiates play. 
Unfortunately, let

[[Page 13760]]

me show my colleagues what play looks like to Bambi. This is what play 
looks like to Bambi.
  Now, I will tell my colleagues, they are causing great problems in 
the State of Idaho. But we knew as part of the deal of reintroduction 
of these wolves as a nonessential experimental population is that we 
would have to manage some of them. We would have to kill some of the 
wolves that got out of control. That was part of the deal. 
Unfortunately, we have had to do that. Anyone that thought we were 
going to reintroduce wolves into Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Minnesota, or 
New York had better be prepared to deal with the problem wolves that 
occur. It is not just in the wilderness. We have mothers that are 
standing by school buses in Salmon, Idaho, because wolves are on the 
borders of the communities.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time and for his support in opposition to this amendment. This is 
something that is vitally important to my congressional district where 
much of it is mountainous land where we have sheep herds; we have other 
livestock that are threatened by coyotes. It has become a very, very 
serious problem in the State of Virginia. This is not just a Western 
problem.
  Unfortunately, Virginia only receives $35,000 for the entire State 
for predator control, and we are losing the battle to preserve a 
valuable resource in our State. For the first time in history, the 
Virginia sheep flock has dipped below 100,000 animals. Conversely, the 
coyote population is growing at a rate of between 20 percent and 50 
percent, according to the Virginia Department of Game and Inland 
Fisheries. The limited amount of money received from the Wildlife 
Services Program only funds one trapper who has to monitor the traps in 
17 counties. The USDA agrees that our area is desperately understaffed. 
It is impossible for one staff member to monitor 17 counties under the 
Wildlife Services Program.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits USDA Wildlife Service (WS) 
professionals from attempting to prevent wildlife damage. This Wildlife 
Service program is directed by professional wildlife biologists and is 
vital to managing wildlife in order to protect human health and safety, 
prevent environmental damage and to protect agricultural and rural 
economic interests.
  Many perceive this as a strictly Western issue. Not so. Virginia has 
one of the largest sheep populations in the Eastern United States and 
Wildlife Services helps protect this valuable resource, valued at $8.1 
million. Unfortunately Virginia only receives $35,000 for predator 
control and we are losing the battle. For the first time in history, 
the Virginia sheep flock has dipped below 100,000 animals. Conversely, 
the coyote population is growing at a rate between 20% and 50% 
according to VA Department of Game and inland fisheries.
  The limited amount of money received from the Wildlife Services 
Program only funds one trapper who has to monitor the traps in 17 
counties. USDA agrees that our area is desperately understaffed. It is 
impossible for one staff member to monitor seventeen counties under the 
Wildlife Services Program. Because the trapper has responsibility over 
such a large area he was only able to trap 40 coyotes in Highland 
county last year. The coyote population is thought to be in the 
thousands.
  I have asked the Department to reexamine their geographic allocation 
of resources within the Wildlife Services Program to see if more staff 
can be dedicated to our area but that would take existing resources 
from an existing program, destroying the investment already made in 
that area.
  Supporters of this amendment will say that the program is bad for the 
environment. This is simply not true. Many Wildlife Services projects 
have benefited threatened and endangered species. Wildlife Services 
personnel work closely with officials from U.S. Fish and Wildlife or 
the appropriate state agency. Last year, Wildlife Services helped to 
protect 84 threatened or endangered species from predation. These 
projects were conducted across 26 states, Puerto Rico, the Virgin 
Islands and Guam.
  What we need are additional resources for this vital program. We 
can't afford to cut this program. Cutting funds would only hurt those 
we are trying to help the most in this bill, citizens of rural America. 
Make no mistake, this amendment isn't about a budget or an economic 
issue, this is about animal rights. This amendment is about which 
animals are to be protected and which aren't. The sponsors of the 
amendment want to protect the noxious beasts that are driving family 
farms out of business. I want to protect the animals that farmers, 
ranchers and shepherds are counting on to provide for their own 
families well being.
  Vote ``no'' on this amendment and ``yes'' for rural America.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, although we need to treat our 
farmers well, we need to treat our animals humanely, so I rise to 
support the DeFazio-Bass amendment as a humane effort to deal with our 
wildlife.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment which curtails the funding for what was 
formerly known as the Animal Damage Control program.
  This amendment cuts $7 million in funding for the Department of 
Agriculture's inappropriately named ``Wildlife Services'' program. I 
say that it is inappropriately named, because the program does nothing 
to serve in the best interests of wildlife. It is, instead, a program 
whose purpose is to help farmers cope with natural predators who may 
prey on their livestock. While I believe that helping farmers is a 
laudable goal, the problem is that the way this program is 
administered, little help is provided and much damage caused.
  Each year, this program indiscriminately kills 90,000 coyotes, foxes, 
bears and mountain lions. It is indiscriminate because there are few 
controls to ensure that the animals being slaughtered are tied to 
attacks on livestock. Oftentimes, young cubs are caught and killed, and 
on occasion, even a domesticated dog or cat will be mistakenly felled. 
This is simply not appropriate--and it should be stopped.
  Wildlife Services is cruel because Wildlife Services still insists on 
using barbaric methods to handle these animals--including poisons, 
snares, leg-hold traps and even aerial hunting. Sometimes, these 
animals are simply clubbed to death. Harp Seals are not the only 
animals that need protection from this brutal practice. We can do 
better than this--humane animal control techniques exist in our modern 
world. We can relocate animals that have caused problems.
  How is it that we can build an internationally-sponsored space 
station or clone animals, but yet we cannot find a way to treat our 
animals humanely? Do we need to spray poison in the face of animals 
that can contaminate other animals, or even humans, it comes in contact 
with afterwards? Must we kill not only the offending animal, but also 
every innocent scavenger that happens upon its corpse? In this 
scenario, must we curtail the hunting of our nation's beloved national 
bird, the Bald Eagle and instead subject him to this brutal and 
inhumane hunting method.
  This program has been ineffective, and roundly criticized for 
decades. It was fully reviewed by advisory committees under the 
Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Carter Administrations--each of which 
suggested numerous reforms, but none have been adopted.
  The General Accounting Office (GAO) similarly released a report in 
1995 that found the program to be largely ineffective. Studies have 
shown the coyotes have adapted to our killing techniques much better 
than we have adapted towards more humane methods of predator control. 
Despite a 71% increase in funding for these programs between 1983 and 
1993, coyotes have compensated for the culling of their species by 
simply having more pups. Surely, we have been out-foxed here!
  In addition, unlike in the past the amendment will fund Wildlife 
Services at the level proposed in the President's budget for FY 2001 
(about 28.7 million for operations). Simply cutting the excess $7 
million subsidy provided in the Committee bill over and above what the 
Administration considers necessary to carry out Wildlife Service 
operations nationwide.
  We are smarter than this. This House is smarter than this. As a 
result, I urge my colleagues to support this sensible and humane 
amendment being offered by Congressmen DeFazio and Bass.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  There is one issue and one issue only before the House: shall the 
taxpayers provide a special subsidy to Western ranchers. Approximately 
$7 million a year is spent on the wasteful, ineffective, indiscriminate 
killing of wildlife in the Western U.S. and, as we heard

[[Page 13761]]

from my colleague from Oregon last night, it is not working. Maybe we 
should try something else.
  After more than a half century, there are more coyotes, more 
dispersed. They do not understand coyotes' biology. Kill the alphas and 
the rest of them go disperse and breed. They kill nontarget species. 
Here is a golden eagle. Well, here are some predators right here. We 
can see these little guys have definitely been feasting on sheep. No, 
they have not been, but they were killed too.
  This program should end. There is no effect on public safety, despite 
what we hear from others. Bird strikes at airports, rabbit are 
dangerous to humans, brown tree snakes, dusky geese, endangered 
species, all of those could continue to be controlled by a nearly $30 
million-a-year budget for the animal damage control folks. Farmers and 
ranchers would be free to hire or themselves use any legal method of 
control for any threats to their flocks. Why send a Federal employee to 
take care of their private interests? I cannot call a Federal employee 
to take care of the possums, deer and raccoons who transgress on my 
property, probably from the nearby BLM. They will not come. But if I 
was a rancher, they would. Now, why is this exclusive subsidy made 
available?
  Do not be cowed by the howls of protests from the privileged few who 
are enjoying this subsidy. Ignore the false sense of their red herring 
arguments and stop fleecing the taxpayers here today. Vote for this 
amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) to close debate.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Today I rise as chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus that 
strongly opposes this amendment. On behalf of myself and the other 
leaders of the caucus who try to speak for the sportsmen of this 
country, we hope that our colleagues will vote this amendment down.
  As sportsmen we are concerned with reserving populations of wildlife 
for future generations, as well as preserving our right to hunt and 
fish. The hard reality is that this amendment would create unnecessary 
and increased wildlife losses.
  Contrary to what my colleagues have been told, Wildlife Services 
reduces the overall amount of wildlife taken by selectively targeting 
only those animals that are causing damage. In Kansas where Wildlife 
Services does not conduct a program, the number of animals killed by 
others is dramatically higher, not less.
  But more importantly, this amendment will not only target animals 
that are bothering ranchers, if part of the budget is eliminated that 
is being talked about, many areas will be left with no service on 
protection at all. They will simply eliminate the position because 
there will not be enough to do. This means that other Wildlife Services 
functions like airport safety and human protection will not be 
performed.
  Also, areas like northern Minnesota will be left unprotected because 
species such as the timber wolf can only be effectively taken by 
professional trappers who know what they are doing. Here we have a 
species that was protected by the Federal Government, whose population 
has exploded to double what it was and double the original range, has 
moved out of the timber area into the farming country, and has caused 
us a huge amount of problems. If this amendment passes, there will be 
no way to help those farmers with these livestock losses. It is not 
feasible for them to control these animals themselves because they are 
very difficult to hunt or trap.
  Maybe, if we release some of these wolves in Eugene, Oregon, or 
Minneapolis or Boston or San Francisco or New York City, we would have 
a different attitude on the part of some Members of this House. This is 
an irresponsible amendment that will do more harm than good. Please 
join the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus in opposing this amendment.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the DeFazio-Bass 
Amendment, which funds the Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services' 
program for fiscal year 2001 (FY 01) at the level requested by the 
President, and prohibits funds in the bill from being used for lethal 
predator control methods.
  Put briefly, the Wildlife Services' methods of predator control are 
ineffective, wasteful and inhumane.
  Despite increased spending and increased killing between 1983 and 
1993, there was no decrease in the number of livestock lost to 
predators. Clearly, this is a program in need of serious re-evaluation.
  Further, as a co-chair of the Congressional Friends of Animals 
Caucus, I would be remiss if I did not point out the killing methods 
currently employed by the Wildlife Services' program are excessively 
cruel and unselective--commonly capturing both wild and domestic non-
target animals alike. These methods--including the use of 
indiscriminate aerial gunning, steel-jawed leghold traps, poisonous 
gas, gasoline, smoke and fire--are both inhumane and brutal.
  The existence of alternative methods of predator control--including 
the use of guard dogs, sound and light devices, fencing, carcass 
removal and night penning--make these practices largely unnecessary. In 
those instances where lethal control practices are necessary, namely to 
protect threatened or endangered species, and to protect human health, 
the DeFazio-Bass amendment allows Wildlife Services to carry out lethal 
predator control.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support this balanced, common sense amendment which is endorsed by 
taxpayer, environmental and humane organizations around the country.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
the DeFazio-Bass amendment.
  This amendment eliminates the proposed increase in funding for the 
United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Wildlife Services' 
predator control programs. Regrettably, the USDA has participated in 
some needless and particularly harsh predator control methods. The 
DeFazio-Bass Amendment highlights this problem and ensures that the 
USDA is not rewarded for a program that is wasteful, ineffective and 
unnecessarily cruel to animals.
  This cost saving and compassionate amendment reduces funding for the 
Wildlife Services program to the Administration's budget request. This 
amendment will not cripple our Wildlife Services predator program nor 
will it impede USDA efforts to protect public health and safety. The 
DeFazio-Amendment simply reduces the program in a way that will allow 
the USDA to place its operations in alignment with public values.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe Americans would be outraged to learn that 
their hard earned tax dollars are being used to set out Steel-Jaw 
Leghold Traps on our public lands. These devices are banned in 89 
countries and a number of states, including my state of New Jersey, 
because they are a cruel and unusual form of animal punishment that 
cannot discriminate.
  Probably the most egregious predator control practice is ``Denning.'' 
Federal Wildlife Service employees, who practice ``Denning'' smoke 
coyote pups from their dens and then kill the pups by clubbing them 
with shovels when they emerge.
  Mr. Chairman, American's tax dollars should not be subsidizing these 
activities. It is unthinkable that we are spending so much money to 
kill so many animals by such cruel means. While our Wildlife Services 
predator program has been effective in some areas, such as controlling 
bird populations around airports, its lethal predator control 
activities in western states are unacceptable. Reducing funding for the 
Lethal Predator program by $7 million will target its most wasteful and 
needless activities, allowing the USDA to concentrate on more effective 
compassionate measures.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes good fiscal sense and it is 
environmentally sound. Taxpayers should not subsidize the western 
livestock industry, and we should not subsidize killing animals in 
indiscriminate and cruel ways. I urge my colleagues to vote ``Yes'' on 
the DeFazio-Bass amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on this amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. DeFazio).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. 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 13762]]

the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) will 
be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKEEN. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the 
distinguished subcommittee chairman regarding the use of the farm 
planning and analysis system known as FINPACK.
  USDA, through the Farm Service Agency, has determined that this 
planning and analysis system that has proven to be a useful tool for 
Minnesota producers is to be terminated as of September 30 this year, 
the year 2000.
  I am seeking to develop report language that directs the Farm Service 
Agency to develop an effective interface between FINPACK and the Farm 
and Home Plan presently used by the Farm Service Agency. It is my 
understanding that the generic interface that is presently developed is 
not capable of long-term and effective transfer of information.

                              {time}  1300

  It is necessary to take FINPACK data and reformat it into the Farm 
and Home Plan format.
  The Farm Service Agency has indicated that they are seeking 
assistance from the University of Minnesota to accomplish this. The 
University of Minnesota has informed me that they are a long way today 
from accomplishing this task because currently there is not a contract 
in place between the university and the Farm Service Agency to develop 
this interface.
  It is essential that Minnesota producers have an interface that 
effectively works at field level and is effective in the future, into 
the future, allowing producers to use the superior management tool that 
is FINPACK.
  I would ask the subcommittee chairman to work with me in the 
conference committee or in the report language to allow for the time 
required to develop the interface that is necessary.
  I would seek also to delay any implementation of the Farm and Home 
Plan until an effective and long-term interface is in place.
  Is this something that the distinguished chairman would be in a 
position to assist us with?
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his concern. I 
will work with him to assure that the FSA provides a smooth transition 
to a common computing environment for Minnesota FINPACK users. FSA has 
provided me with a copy of the contract they are entering into with the 
University of Minnesota to facilitate that endeavor.
  In addition, I wish to provide for the Record a letter from Mr. Keith 
Kelly, administrator for the Farm Service Agency, that outlines the 
agency's plan for using and integrating agency software with their 
financial software, including FINPACK, and the proprietary software 
mentioned in the gentleman's statement.

                                                         USDA,

                                    Washington, DC, June 16, 2000.
     Joe Skeen,
     Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Skeen: This is in reference to the continued usage 
     of the FINPACK software by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) 
     offices in Minnesota. FSA field offices have been required to 
     use the Agency's automated system called the Farm and Home 
     Plan (FHP) system for many years to produce FHP's for our 
     farm borrowers and to perform various farm planning and 
     analysis functions. With the exception of Minnesota, the FHP 
     system has been used successfully by FSA field offices in all 
     other States. FSA has continued to fund the yearly 
     maintenance and allow Minnesota to use FINPACK until the 
     Agency had developed an interface that would allow for all of 
     the historical FINPACK data to be loaded into the official 
     FHP database housed at each of the FSA field offices.
       FSA has developed a generic interface that will provide the 
     capability for data from the FINPACK system to be loaded into 
     the official FHP database. As a result, the FSA field offices 
     in Minnesota will be required to use the Agency's official 
     PC-FHP system beginning in Fiscal Year 2001. The farm 
     borrower community, banks, other lending institutes, and farm 
     management educational organizations will be able to continue 
     their use of FINPACK to perform farm/financial planning and 
     analysis functions as they have done in the past. The only 
     difference will be in the format and layout of the data 
     file(s) sent to the Minnesota FSA field offices for loading 
     into the official FHP database. Once the data file(s) is 
     received by the Minnesota FSA field office staffs, the 
     generic interface will be used to load the data into official 
     FHP database.
       This generic interface can also be used to load data into 
     the official FHP database from other farm/financial software 
     packages that are being used by our farm loan borrowers, 
     thereby not limiting its use to FINPACK only, but opening the 
     door for other farm/financial software vendors to interface 
     with FSA's FHP system. Additionally, this generic interface 
     can be used to load data into the official FHP database from 
     farm/financial software packages being used by banks and 
     other lending institutes and farm management educational 
     organizations that support FSA's farm loan borrowers. In 
     regard to the historical FINPACK data, FSA will be 
     contracting with the University of Minnesota for the software 
     development of a data conversion routine that will provide 
     for the one-time data conversion of 5 years of financial and 
     production information from the FINPACK system into FSA's 
     personal computer-FHP (PC-FHP) system. The cost for the 
     software development for the data conversion routine is 
     $25,000. The estimated one-time benefit of implementing an 
     automated solution for converting 5 years of financial and 
     production information into the Agency's PC-FHP system is 
     $300,383.
       The Department of Agriculture (USDA) has invested millions 
     of dollars in establishing a Common Computing Environment 
     (CCE) in our field service centers. These service centers 
     provide co-located offices for the three sister agencies: 
     FSA, Rural Development (RD), and the Natural Resources and 
     Conservation Service (NRCS). The establishment of the service 
     centers provides for one- stop shopping for our customers. In 
     order to provide this service for our customers, FSA, RD, and 
     NRCS must have a common hardware and software platform in the 
     field service center offices. Our CCE efforts have 
     established the standard hardware and software platform in 
     the field offices, and the FHP system is part of that 
     standard. The information obtained from the FHP System is 
     tied locally in each field office and is tied to other 
     mission critical applications. The information is then fed to 
     a central computer system enabling Senior Management to 
     monitor the Agency's portfolio nationally using the same 
     criteria.
       In order for USDA's CCE efforts to continue successfully 
     and improve customer service in the field service center 
     offices, it is very important that the software platform on 
     the new CCE equipment be uniform and controlled. Uniformity 
     and control of our software applications help to ensure that 
     all of our customers are being serviced in a like manner. 
     This means that all of our field offices are using the same 
     software applications, such as the FHP system, to service our 
     customers and meet the Agency's business needs. To allow one 
     State, such as Minnesota, to deviate from this common 
     software platform, would impede the efforts of USDA to 
     improve the Agency's computing environment and its ability to 
     provide better service to our customers.
       From the financial standpoint, the PC-FHP system was 
     developed by FSA for approximately $250,000. When the cost of 
     the development is divided among the 2,500 field offices, the 
     development per copy is less than $100 per office. The PC-FHP 
     software is currently loaded on more than 10,000 PC's. If the 
     cost for development is divided by the number of PC's, the 
     cost per PC is around $25. The annual maintenance/enhancement 
     cost for the PC-FHP system is $120,000. When the cost for 
     annual maintenance is divided by the number of PC's, the cost 
     per PC is $12. In regard to Minnesota, FSA is currently 
     paying $150 per site license for annual maintenance of the 
     FINPACK software. The cost for a new site license for the 
     FINPACK software is normally $600. However, the Center for 
     Farm Financial Management at the University of Minnesota 
     recently quoted FSA a price of $495 for a new FINPACK site 
     license. Based on this information, if FSA were to buy 
     FINPACK site licenses for our 2,500 field offices, the cost 
     would be $1,237,500 with an annual maintenance cost of 
     $375,000. If the cost for the FINPACK site licenses is 
     divided by the number of PC's, the cost per PC is around 
     $123.73. When the cost for annual maintenance of FINPACK is 
     divided by the number of PC's, the cost per PC is $37.50. The 
     software and maintenance costs of the PC-FHP are still lower 
     than those of FINPACK, if not by a wide margin. However, 
     there are other cost factors to consider. All of FSA's 2,500 
     field offices have been trained on the use of the PC-FHP 
     system (this includes Minnesota).
       As stated above, with the exception of Minnesota, the FHP 
     system is being used successfully by FSA field offices in all 
     other

[[Page 13763]]

     States. If FSA were to implement FINPACK nation-wide, we 
     would have to retrain the staff in all field offices (except 
     Minnesota), on how to use the FINPACK software. The costs 
     associated with this type of training effort would be in the 
     million plus range. Also, please note that FINPACK is a 
     commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS) software package. There are 
     several COTS software packages out on the Market that perform 
     farm planning an analysis functions, like FINPACK. If FSA 
     were to consider replacing the PC-FHP with a COTS software 
     package, it would have to be done as a competitive 
     procurement effort. Considering these facts and cost 
     information, FSA sees no benefit in replacing the PC-FHP 
     system nationwide with the FINPACK software.
       With the development of the interface, data conversion 
     software, and the cost information and justification 
     presented in the above paragraphs, FSA remains firm in its 
     decision to stop support of FINPACK in the Minnesota field 
     offices and require them to use the Agency's official PC-FHP 
     system. We request your assistance in this effort.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Keith Kelly,
                                             Acting Administrator.

  Mr. MINGE. I thank the gentleman very much.
  I should add that we have received a letter from the distinguished 
chairman, and have had an opportunity to analyze that and feel that 
there is some additional information we could provide the gentleman and 
perhaps include in the Record about the ongoing difficulties we have in 
trying to complete this task.
  I really look forward to the opportunity to work with the gentleman 
on this.
  Mr. SKEEN. I thank the gentleman. I think we can make a good deal 
working together. I am ready to do that.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much and include 
the aforementioned letter.

                                U.S. House of Representatives,

                                    Washington, DC, July 10, 2000.
     Hon. Joe Skeen,
     Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Skeen: I have received your written 
     opposition to the proposed amendment to allow the usage of 
     FINPACK by Minnesota FSA offices. We have researched this 
     issue, and wish to respond to those points as follows:
       1. ``FSA is only terminating the use of 44 pieces of 
     FINPACK software in FSA offices in Minnesota in order to 
     facilitate a common computing environment for all FSA offices 
     beginning October 1, 2000.''
       Minnesota FSA field staff who work with farm loans (MN 
     Association of Credit Supervisors, NACS) have unanimously 
     asked for the ability to continue to use FINPACK. The 
     National Association of Credit Supervisors, NACS (the 
     employee organization for FSA employees previously part of 
     FmHA) have passed a resolution supporting the continued use 
     of FINPACK by MN FSA. Several hundred lenders, educators and 
     borrowers in MN have contacted congressional offices asking 
     that MN FSA be allowed to continue to use FINPACK.
       This decision reaches far beyond 44 MN FSA offices. 
     Following is the resolution agreed to by the NACS National 
     Convention the week of June 19, 2000. Resolution 7. Concern: 
     Procedure 1910-A [1910.4(b)(9)] indicates that projected 
     production, income and expenses, and loan repayment plan, may 
     be submitted on Form FmHA 431-2, ``Farm and Home Plan'', or 
     other similar plans of operation acceptable to FSA. FSA has 
     been using the Finpack or similar systems. For example the 
     Finflo is a 12-month cash flow and takes into account the 
     inventories. The Finan is a more accurate analysis of the 
     Borrowers's previous year's actual records. Farm Management 
     Instructors, many FSA borrowers, and numerous lenders use the 
     Finpack and similar systems. Proposed Solution: Continue to 
     allow the use of Finpack or similar automated systems.
       As the ``lender of last resort'' and provider of 
     ``supervised credit'' FSA has a mandate to help producers 
     improve their management capacity and ultimately their 
     financial viability. FINPACK is used by tens of thousands of 
     producers, educators, and lenders outside of FSA to make 
     management decisions. At the same time it is used for credit 
     analysis and applications. It is dual purpose in that it 
     helps producers and at the same time provides information for 
     lenders.
       On the other hand, FSA's Farm and Home Plan is used 
     exclusively for credit applications. The FHP is simply a 
     computerized method to fill out government forms that have 
     remained essentially unchanged for more than 50 years. It has 
     not undergone continual development to help producers manage 
     the vastly different agriculture of the 21st century versus 
     the 1950's when the forms were developed. Congress and FSA 
     need to decide whether FSA loan programs will simply be used 
     as means to distribute government loans to financially 
     stressed producers or if these funds will be leveraged by 
     linking them to educational programs that help producers 
     succeed in business. FSA initiated Borrower Training programs 
     several years ago for the very purpose of linking loans to 
     management training. In many states FINPACK is used as the 
     primary training material for Borrower Training. It makes no 
     sense to use an inferior program that does not help producers 
     when a superior program is already being used. The goal 
     should be to provide farmers with the financial tools to 
     succeed.
       More than 1,000 Extension Educators use FINPACK to help 
     producers with farm management training. Allowing and 
     encouraging FSA to use FINPACK improves agency efficiency and 
     enhances the benefits producers receive from USDA. In 
     Minnesota, educators, lenders, and FSA share FINPACK data 
     files to save producers time and money and improve the 
     efficiency of each organization. FINPACK allows educators and 
     lenders to share financial data via email or on disks. 
     Removing FINPACK from MN FSA offices is a step backward when 
     considered in the context of how USDA should be serving U.S. 
     producers. Many people think FSA should be trying to 
     replicate the cooperation in MN rather than dismantling it. 
     FSA has stated repeatedly that they plan to develop some of 
     the management components within the FHP that are currently 
     in FINPACK, such as monthly cash flows and historical trend 
     analysis. These developments will be costly and will require 
     significant time before FSA can make them available to 
     producers, but they are already available in FINPACK.
       2. ``FSA is providing generic interface capabilities for 
     borrowers, financial institutions and others using FINPACK 
     and other farm and financial management software packages 
     with FSA program files.''
       According to the University of Minnesota, FSA has not 
     developed a generic interface. FSA's Farm and Home Plan (FHP) 
     software stores data in a Microsoft Access database. This 
     means that any other software program can export data in 
     Access format and it can be loaded into the Access database. 
     However, FSA has not addressed how lenders, educators and 
     producers can transfer producer ID's so that the FHP knows 
     where to store the data.
       The development of a functioning interface would be a 
     valuable development, however, FSA has previously stated that 
     software will be available shortly but struggled to deliver 
     on schedule. Currently FSA has two versions of the Farm and 
     Home Plan software. One that runs on PC's and one that runs 
     on their mainframe System 36 machines. These two versions of 
     the FHP are not interfaced and cannot transfer data. If FSA 
     can't transfer data internally between their offices and 
     systems how optimistic can lenders, educators and producers 
     that currently supply FINPACK data directly to FSA in MN be 
     that their data will still be accepted by FSA after FINPACK 
     use is terminated in MN FSA offices?
       3. ``FSA has contracted with the University of Minnesota to 
     convert 5 years of historical FINPACK data to the FSA 
     software program used in the other 49 states.''
       A contract is not in place, nor has one been initiated. The 
     U of MN has verbally agreed to develop an interface that will 
     allow FSA staff to transfer data from FINPACK to FSA's Farm 
     and Home Plan. FSA can store the five years of data, but 
     cannot do any analysis on it (FINPACK can store data 
     indefinitely enabling lenders, educators, mediators, and 
     producers themselves to undertake useful trend analysis).
       4. ``A survey of surrounding states to Minnesota shows that 
     less than 5 percent of the farm loan borrowers use FINPACK. 
     And in some instances, almost no borrowers use FINPACK.
       According to surveys of FINPACK users, between 30,000 and 
     60,000 producers use FINPACK annually throughout the country. 
     Most of these producers use the software with the assistance 
     of educators, consultants and lenders. Most producers use 
     FINPACK because they understand the value of financial 
     information to the management of their businesses, not 
     because they are required to use it. One question that must 
     be asked is how FSA determined that 5 percent of their 
     borrowers use FINPACK. Were borrowers actually surveyed or 
     did FSA simply ask field staff to estimate the number of 
     borrowers they think use FINPACK?
       5. ``And finally, delinquency rates for Minnesota and the 
     surrounding states shows that Minnesota has a farm loan 
     delinquency rate of 19 percent, almost twice the rate of the 
     surrounding states that don't use FINPACK.''
       This statement illustrates the misinformation that 
     continues to be used in discussions regarding FINPACK. The 
     FSA loan delinquency rate in the two high volume northwest 
     Minnesota districts are 19.5 and 23.0 percent. Across the 
     border in North Dakota it is 21.0 percent. This Red River 
     Valley area has experienced severe flooding and crop disease 
     problems for at least five consecutive years. The south 
     central district of Minnesota has a delinquency rate of 4.5 
     percent. Across the border in Iowa the delinquency rate is 
     9.6 percent. Additionally, a study conducted in North Dakota 
     in December 1996 showed that producers who use FINPACK on 
     average showed $1,000 to $3,500 improvement in net farm 
     income per year.

[[Page 13764]]

       ``While I am not suggesting use of FINPACK alone is a 
     reason for the poor loan delinquencies, I am only suggesting 
     that FSA should have an opportunity to administer the farm 
     loan program in a like manner across the nation without 
     parochial interference. For these reasons, I oppose the 
     Gentleman's amendment and ask that his amendment be 
     defeated.''
       FINPACK conforms to the Farm Financial Guidelines 
     established by the Farm Financial Council, a task force 
     initiated in the early 1990's by the American Banker's 
     Association. FSA has made no attempt to conform the Farm and 
     Home Plan to these guidelines. FINPACK meets the FSA 
     requirements to provide a monthly cash flow for FSA's 
     Interest Assistance Program. The Farm and Home Plan can't 
     generate a monthly cash flow and therefore can't meet the 
     federal regulations for applications for the Interest 
     Assistance. FSA has attempted to develop a viable Farm and 
     Home Plan software program for more than 15 years with 
     marginal success. In the mid 1990's they spent millions on 
     the aborted attempts to develop farm accounting software. FSA 
     is a farm credit agency, not a software developer. If 
     Congress were to announce that it is spending millions of 
     dollars to write its own software instead of utilizing 
     better, more comprehensive, market tested products, there 
     would be outright public revolt. FSA should be held to the 
     same standard.
       In conclusion, FINPACK is an extremely valuable tool that 
     has offered an opportunity to Minnesota producers to compete 
     in an extremely difficult economic crisis. It has also 
     provided an opportunity for Minnesota FSA offices to work 
     with these producers in an efficient manner.
       It would be extremely unfortunate to lose this tool.
           Sincerely,
     David Minge,
       Member of Congress.
     Gil Gutknecht,
       Member of Congress.

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKEEN. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone). Perhaps we can proceed that way.
  Mr. SKEEN. I believe we can do that.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKEEN. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PALLONE. I thank the Chairman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment, but I would like to enter into 
this colloquy in lieu of that at this time.
  Each year over 660,000 people become ill and more than 300 die from a 
single contaminant in a single food. That is the bacterium Salmonella 
in eggs. More than 170 outbreaks of Salmonella illness from eggs have 
been documented in the past decade. Children, the elderly, and the 
immune-impaired are especially at risk.
  In an effort to combat the threat to public safety posed by 
Salmonella eggs, the administration proposed an egg safety action plan 
last December. The Food and Drug Administration is currently in the 
process of developing regulations to implement this plan.
  It is extremely important that Congress join the administration in an 
effort to implement a strong science-based system to locate eggs 
contaminated by Salmonella before they reach the consumer.
  During the committee process for the agricultural appropriations 
bill, my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), 
successfully offered an amendment that was of great concern to a number 
of food safety, public health and consumer groups, as well as a host of 
Members in this body who regularly work on food safety issues.
  Accordingly, I drafted an amendment to strike the Kingston language 
from the bill that I intended to offer today.
  Specifically, I was concerned about three issues. The first was that 
the Kingston amendment would have sharply limited environmental testing 
for Salmonella. Producers need to test the chickens' environment, not 
just the eggs, to find out if the flock is contaminated with 
Salmonella.
  My concern on this front is that the Kingston amendment would have 
limited environmental testing until 2 or 3 weeks before the end of the 
life of the flock. If Salmonella is found at that time, it is far too 
late to recall or pasteurize most of the eggs produced by the 
contaminated flock, and the public will have been put at risk. Testing 
should occur at a much earlier time in order to ensure that if 
Salmonella is found, it is found early enough to prevent the 
contaminated eggs from reaching consumers.
  Secondly, I was concerned that the Kingston language would have 
severely restricted the FDA's authority to require the egg industry to 
identify contaminated eggs and pasteurize them. Pasteurization 
eliminates Salmonella but reduces the value of the egg because it can 
no longer be sold as a table egg.
  As I understood it, the Kingston amendment would have prevented FDA 
from requiring pasteurization on the basis of environmental testing. If 
an environment tests positive for Salmonella, the eggs that come from 
that environment must be properly tested to determine if they are 
contaminated.
  While it is true that a positive environment does not automatically 
mean eggs from that environment are contaminated, it is also true there 
is a great chance there will be contaminated eggs from that 
environment. Accordingly, we must have a system that takes the 
condition of the environment into consideration during the process of 
determining which eggs need to be diverted to pasteurization.
  Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I was concerned that the Kingston amendment 
would have required the taxpayer to foot the bill for testing eggs for 
Salmonella, instead of the egg producers. Many in the Egg Industry 
Council contend that it is fair to have the government pick up the tab 
for the testing because the government pays for Salmonella testing of 
meat and poultry.
  It is important to keep two points in mind, however. The first is 
that meet meat and poultry producers do not get a free ride. The 
government requires them to pay for E. Coli testing. The second is that 
although the government does pay for Salmonella testing in meat and 
poultry, it also owns the data and makes that data available to the 
public. So, in my view, it is very appropriate for egg producers to pay 
for the cost of Salmonella testing. It is also important to make sure 
that if the government pays for any testing, it owns the data from the 
testing.
  Fortunately, over the last several weeks negotiations between those 
of us concerned about the Kingston amendment, including myself, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the Center for Science in the Public 
Interest, the Food Animal Concerns Trust, and those supporting the 
Kingston amendment, including the United Egg Producers, continued.
  It is my understanding that, as a result of those negotiations, the 
United Egg Producers have accepted a number of the recommendations the 
coalition of food safety, public health, and consumer groups were 
advocating be adopted to improve the Kingston amendment.
  I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Georgia 
and ask him to elaborate on the actions that United Egg Producers have 
taken in recent days.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from New Mexico will 
continue to yield, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his 
interest in working with us. I wanted to say also we will gladly do a 
colloquy with the gentleman on this.
  First of all, it is important to keep the burden of the solution in 
proportion to the problem. According to the President's egg safety 
plan, only one in 20,000 eggs contain Salmonella enteritis, and the 
presence of this bacteria in a raw egg alone does not guarantee illness 
upon consumption.
  Secondly, according to the Centers for Disease Control, the number of 
reported deaths from this type of Salmonella in eggs during 1999 was 
zero.
  Third, if we cook the egg, the risk is zero.
  As the gentleman can imagine, I disagree with some of his 
interpretations of our amendment. For example, the Kingston amendment 
does not prohibit environmental testing, nor does it require that such 
testing be limited to 2 or 3 weeks before the end of the life of the 
flock. The language is not that specific.

[[Page 13765]]

  In addition, in responding to the gentleman's comments on SE testing, 
I simply note that the Federal government not only pays SE testing 
costs, it also pays the cost of mandatory inspections for meat, for 
poultry, and for processed eggs.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) 
has expired.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKEEN. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for continuing to 
yield to me.
  Mr. Chairman, the Federal government not only pays SE testing costs, 
it also pays the cost of mandatory inspection for meat, poultry, and 
for processed egg products. Moreover, in the frequently-cited 
Pennsylvania Egg Quality Assurance Program, the State government pays 
testing costs. Some have mentioned E coli testing, but that is not a 
problem in eggs.
  In short, almost all the relevant precedents support public funding.
  There are several other points on which I cannot agree with the 
gentleman's characterization of the amendment, but it will be more 
productive to describe the informal discussions to which he has also 
referred.
  Egg producers continue to support the Kingston amendment. However, 
they also have been reassured during these informal discussions by 
statements from the FDA about the agency's current thinking on egg 
safety regulation. The egg producers feel that FDA's current intentions 
are considerably more reasonable than was implied in the egg safety 
action plan when it was released in December.
  I am prepared to negotiate during the conference, and the egg 
producers are prepared to support, a compromise package. We cannot know 
the outcome of conference negotiations for certain because we cannot 
control the Senate. However, both the producers and I promise our best 
efforts towards a compromise.
  Our position will be as follows: Producers would conduct an 
environmental test when flocks are 40 to 45 weeks of age. They would 
pay for this test. If additional environmental tests were required, 
that could only be on the basis of sound science, and then the costs 
would be publicly funded.
  In addition, the FDA would need to consider the amount of testing 
required in current national and State quality assurance programs in 
establishing testing requirements.
  Secondly, eggs will only be required to be diverted into processing 
based on positive egg tests, which would be required if an 
environmental test was positive. Producers would pay for the egg tests.
  Although this would not be part of the statutory language, we expect 
that the egg labeling proposal from last July will be substantially 
modified to take into account comments received. In addition, we expect 
that the FDA will consider adding such important steps as vaccination 
into its protocols for quality assurance programs.
  We have discussed other important issues such as trace-backs, the 
safety aspects of grading programs, and consistent enforcement of the 
rules, and expect that these can be dealt with also.
  I believe this is an accurate and complete description of the 
concepts that we have discussed with the FDA, the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), consumer 
advocates, and others.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKEEN. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, in light of the developments and what the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) said, I would ask the gentleman 
if he would be willing to work with myself, the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Brown) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) to develop 
report language that we can all agree to that would detail how we all 
envision this amendment will be implemented.
  If my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) will be 
working with us to accurately reflect the agreement we have reached, I 
will withdraw my amendment.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
I will work with the gentleman and want to make sure that everybody is 
on board. We will move towards that. There are obviously no guarantees, 
but I am confident that we can come up with a good solution for all 
parties.
  Mr. PALLONE. I thank the gentleman and I thank the chairman.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield 
to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins).
  Mr. WATKINS. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the chairman, as he knows, 
due to this year's budget numbers, funding was not appropriated for two 
additional projects I had requested for the State of Oklahoma. I 
believe these projects are vital not only for Oklahoma but also for 
several States in the surrounding area.
  The first request called for something that the gentleman is familiar 
with, the concern for research funding for shipping fever, a severe 
respiratory disease to cattle often contracted during the 
transportation to market.
  Shipping fever is the major cause of clinical disease and death loss 
of stock and feed lot cattle in Oklahoma and the southwestern States, 
including New Mexico. Nationwide, this disease results in economic 
losses to producers of an estimated $1 billion.
  The Shipping Fever Research Project is a multidisciplinary, multi-
institutional, multistate project that complements ongoing research in 
several universities.
  The second request, this was from last week when I went down to 
research a USDA project in my area, the second is funding of a USDA 
special grant for OSU to conduct research focusing on developing 
vegetable production systems for the market areas in the Dallas, 
Oklahoma City, Kansas City, and St. Louis regions.
  Recent changes in Federal price support programs allow producers the 
flexibility to shift into more profitable vegetable production while 
retaining basic support.
  This grant that enhances the potential for producers to shift into 
fresh market vegetable production is great. I think it would be helpful 
to the farmers in all the area.
  Mr. Chairman, I know the Senate has agreed to fund the vegetable 
market project at last year's level, but I would ask for the chairman's 
efforts and work to increase the funds in the conference.
  I hope that within the budget numbers the gentleman has to work with 
that he can find the funds for both of these very, very worthwhile 
programs and projects to help our farmers and reference. I commend the 
chairman for his efforts, and I respectfully ask the chairman's 
consideration and help concerning these requests in the upcoming 
conference.
  Mr. SKEEN. I always appreciate the gentleman's earnest efforts on 
behalf of his constituents. Accordingly, and with the full knowledge of 
our funding constraints, I will attempt to address the gentleman's 
concerns in the conference.
  Mr. WATKINS. I appreciate the chairman's help very, very much.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield 
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, yesterday, on Monday, July 10, a farmer 
cooperative with many producer members in my district filed for 
bankruptcy protection. Hopefully, they will be able to overcome the 
financial challenges that lie ahead of them. But with the prices of 
farm commodities so low, they face an incredibly difficult financial 
obstacle course.
  I want to personally thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) 
for his work on this important bill. It will help many farmers and 
ranchers in my district and in the State of California. Many of the 
provisions allow our producers to market their products overseas and to 
successfully compete against heavily subsidized agricultural producers 
from the European Union.

[[Page 13766]]

  In spite of all of these things that Congress is doing, such as 
passing this bill and passing the Agricultural Risk Protection Act to 
help the producers of America's food to stay on the farm, many of our 
farmers and some co-ops remain in financial trouble.
  Our farmers and ranchers cannot stay on the farm unless they make a 
profit. Mr. Chairman, I know of the strong commitment of the gentleman 
from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) to our agricultural producers. They need to 
know that when times are bad, this Congress will do what is necessary 
with tools already at hand to assure that they can continue growing the 
commodities our Nation wants and needs.
  Mr. Chairman, I am seeking the assistance of the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Skeen) to convince the Secretary of Agriculture to use 
whatever appropriate means he has at his disposal to relieve this 
situation.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) for 
his consideration in this matter. I look forward to working with the 
gentleman.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Ose) for working so hard on behalf of the agriculture in his district. 
The family farmer and ranchers face many difficult challenges, and it 
is my belief that the provisions in this bill will help them.
  I am committed to working with the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Ose) to ensure that the producers in his district have the necessary 
support to overcome the financial challenges facing them.
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield 
to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney).
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, this is one of the most challenging 
periods of time in the last 10 years for apple growers. Low prices, 
labor issues and regulatory actions are posing significant barriers to 
success in this important sector for agriculture.
  For example, Mr. Chairman, according to USDA, U.S. apple growers have 
suffered losses of $760 million over the last 3 years. Also, in the 
past several years, apple prices have been at the lowest levels in over 
a decade.
  These extreme, unprecedented, economic losses are due to a variety of 
factors, including the loss of markets, unknown fair competition from 
below-market imports from China, and lastly, weather-related disasters 
which have reduced yields, as well as quality and prices.
  The cumulative losses have resulted in dire financial conditions. Mr. 
Chairman, many financial institutions are no longer willing to provide 
new loans to apple growers who are now seen as high risks. As a result, 
many growers will be forced out of business without aid.
  In the last 2 years, Mr. Chairman, Congress has provided $22 billion 
in emergency farm relief to address low commodity prices in natural 
disasters. An additional $7 billion has recently been advanced as part 
of the crop insurance reforms. Despite all of this, apple growers have 
received none of the assistance, even though they have suffered losses 
just as severely as any other ag sector.
  This is why I am so pleased that $115 million has been provided in 
the ag appropriations bill to assist apple and potato growers and I 
thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) for his good work 
and support in this effort.
  While this funding is enormously helpful, Mr. Chairman, and long 
overdue, there are even greater challenges facing a significant group 
of farmers in my district and throughout New York State.
  Just last month, massive hailstorms struck the Hudson Valley region 
of New York, bringing widespread and extensive crop damage to Columbia, 
Dutchess, Orange and Ulster Counties, some of which I viewed firsthand 
and it was truly devastating.
  Mr. Chairman, allow me to quantify that damage. Apple production 
losses are estimated at over 2 million bushels on approximately 7,450 
affected acres. As a result, growers intend to completely abandon over 
2,100 acres of fruit this season, further resulting in losses such as 
$19.8 billion in lost production revenue, $13.1 million in lost farm 
worker wages.
  Area growers are working closely with local and State farm service 
agency offices to document losses. In New York, Governor Pataki has 
requested disaster designations from the Secretary of Agriculture for 
these counties. We are currently awaiting those designations.
  Let me point out, Mr. Chairman, there are problems with disaster 
programs at USDA. Although New York apple growers have suffered $41 
million in weather-related losses prior to this year, they received 
only $1.8 million in Federal crop-loss disaster assistance from USDA.
  Area farmers have experienced losses needing at a minimum three 
action items taken in order to rectify them. The first being a disaster 
designation as soon as possible to make affected growers eligible for 
short-term disaster relief aid. Secondly, implementation of reforms to 
crop insurance to ensure that fruit growers have cost-effective 
insurance coverage for catastrophic losses; and, finally, direct grant 
aid to offset the catastrophic losses based on actual crop loses.
  I would like to ask the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman  Skeen) 
for the opportunity to work with him and his subcommittee through 
conference in ensuring that USDA is devoting the appropriate resources 
to the growers in need in New York State.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, as is evident in the 
bill now, I will be pleased to work with the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Sweeney) as the bill advances. I thank the gentleman for bringing 
this to our attention, and it has been good working with the gentleman.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico. At 
this point, these types of issues affect practically all regions and 
sectors of agriculture over the course of time. We are also at this 
time seeing significant rains negatively affect many sectors of 
agriculture in the Northeast.
  As we have worked together on other issues affecting New York 
agriculture, I look forward to continuing to work with the gentleman on 
these issues affecting New York apple growers.


                 Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. Allen

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

       Amendment No. 32 offered by Mr. Allen:
       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 
     approve any application for a new drug submitted by an entity 
     that does not, before completion of the approval process, 
     provide to the Secretary of Health and Human Services a 
     written statement specifying the total cost of research and 
     development with respect to such drug, by stage of drug 
     development, including a separate statement specifying the 
     portion paid with Federal funds and the portion paid with 
     State funds.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House for Monday, July 10, 
2000, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) will be recognized for 5 
minutes, and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) will be 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico reserves a point of 
order.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, during the debate on this legislation yesterday, there 
was a great deal of bipartisan concern about the high prices that our 
seniors pay for their prescription drugs.
  In fact, we did pass the Crowley-Coburn amendment which would provide 
for those seniors who are healthy enough and able enough to go to 
another country to buy their prescription

[[Page 13767]]

drugs relief for those few. But it is worth remembering that only 2 
weeks ago the majority in this House passed by three votes a piece of 
legislation preferred by the pharmaceutical industry that would rely on 
private insurance companies for seniors to get prescription drug 
coverage.
  At the same time, a Democratic alternative that would have provided a 
Medicare prescription drug benefit was not allowed even to have a vote 
in full debate. Today, I rise to offer an amendment that would give 
taxpayers full disclosure of their investment in the research and 
development of prescription drugs. In the debate over extending a 
prescription drug benefit to Medicare beneficiaries, the pharmaceutical 
industry has repeatedly raised concerns that efforts to make drugs 
affordable could impact their ability to conduct research and 
development of new drugs.
  Mr. Chairman, we all support the industry's breakthroughs that have 
improved and extended the lives of people with serious illnesses and 
chronic disabilities, but the explosion in prescription drugs' prices, 
increased utilization, the widespread lack of prescription drug 
coverage has left millions of Americans unable to afford the drugs that 
their doctors tell them they have to take.
  When Medicare was created 35 years ago, there was no provision for 
prescription drug insurance, because the pharmaceuticals played a 
smaller role in health care and that was not a significant cost. But 
today seniors, who represent 12 percent of the population, consume one-
third of all prescription drugs.
  The lack of adequate coverage, combined with a high price of 
prescription drugs means that seniors are left to make choices that no 
American should make. Do they pay the rent or take their high blood 
pressure medication? Do they buy groceries this week or fill their 
prescription for an osteoporosis drug?
  Now, the pharmaceutical industry has been working to stop our efforts 
to provide a benefit under Medicare or a discount for seniors who need 
a discount, and it is also true they always make the point that they 
need these huge profits in order to conduct research and development, 
but after they spend in 1999, $24 billion in research and development, 
they still had $27.3 billion in profits. These dozen or more companies.
  The April issue of Fortune magazine reports that once again, Fortune 
pharmaceuticals are the most profitable industry in the country by 
every measure; number one in return on revenues, number one in return 
on assets, number one in return on shareholder equity.
  Now, the historical evidence suggests to us that continued R&D will 
increase despite what the industry says. In 1984, when the Waxman-Hatch 
Act was passed, the industry predicted that it would lead to cutbacks 
in R&D but, in fact, the pharmaceutical companies more than doubled 
their investment in research and development from $4.1 billion to $8.4 
billion over the 5 years following the enactment of that legislation.
  Finally, I would note that what is going on here is that the 
pharmaceutical industry is developing new drugs in partnership with the 
public. Though we do not have exact figures, an estimate by the 
National Institutes of Health is that taxpayer-funded research, 
combined with private foundation-funded research, accounts for almost 
50 percent of all the medical research in this country related to 
pharmaceuticals.
  It is time for the industry to disclose just how much is spent by 
private industry and just how much is spent by the taxpayers 
essentially in the development of new drugs. We need real figures from 
the industry.
  Our amendment is simple. We are simply asking for disclosure. We 
should not expend any money for the FDA to approve a new drug 
application unless the total cost of research and development of the 
drug is revealed.
  Mr. Chairman, we are particularly interested in knowing how much 
taxpayers have contributed to the development of these new drugs.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New Mexico continue to reserve 
a point of order?
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve a point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, I claim the 5 minutes in opposition, and I yield such 
time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Frelinghuysen).
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the chairman, for yielding me the time, and I rise 
in opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, all of us here are supportive of providing better 
access to prescription drugs to those that need them. Just 2 weeks ago, 
we fought all day to provide greater coverage for older Americans.
  We all agree that no person, particularly the older people, the 
elderly, should ever have to choose between food and medicine. But as 
we work to provide greater coverage and access, we do not want to 
undermine today's private scientific research and medical innovation 
that will continue to find tomorrow's cures, which I believe this 
amendment does.
  Mr. Chairman, in our collective excitement to do more here, some 
today appear to be determined to do just that with a number of 
seemingly attractive amendments to this agricultural appropriations 
bill. They seek to do so by promoting poorly disguised price controls, 
by throwing out Food and Drug Administration protections for consumers, 
by suggesting that all imported drugs are safe, reliable and fresh, and 
we know they are not; by holding up Canada as a model of health care 
delivery and inexpensive medicines, which it is not; by requiring price 
disclosures that no other American industry has to comply with; and by 
demanding research and development information and denying their 
product approvals if not forthcoming and by ignoring the fact that 
about 25 cents on the R&D dollar actually results in an approved FDA 
product or new medicine.
  And they seek to do so, Mr. Chairman, by suggesting that it is only 
the National Institutes of Health that does basic research and that the 
taxpayers are being ripped off by the pharmaceutical companies. While 
the rhetoric fits the times, the facts deserve some weight.
  With specific regard to the Allen amendment, I believe we are better 
served by promoting research partnerships between government and the 
private sector that yield new medicines and cures, not by discouraging 
them. This amendment deserves to be soundly defeated.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) has 15 seconds 
remaining and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) has 2\3/4\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maine 
(Mr. Allen) for his good work on this. We need to know what is behind 
the $500 million claim from the drug industry. We need to know if 
marketing costs are factored in, if executive salaries are factored in, 
if administrative costs are factored in. If the drug company wants 
American consumers to buy into the premise that outrageous prices are 
essential for research and development, they need to show us the 
numbers.

                              {time}  1330

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico has 2\3/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New Mexico insist on his point 
of order?
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) 
withdraw his amendment?
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I understand the point of the point made by 
the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), chairman of the committee, 
and consequently I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Maine?

[[Page 13768]]

  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.


             Amendment No. 37 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. 37 offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio:
       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 
     approve any application for a new drug submitted by an entity 
     that does not agree to publicly disclose, on a quarterly 
     basis during the patent life of the drug, the average price 
     charged by the manufacturer for the most common dosage of the 
     drug (expressed as total revenues divided by total units 
     sold) in each country that is a member of the Organisation 
     for Economic Co-operation and Development.

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico reserves a point of 
order.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Monday, July 10, 2000, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer this amendment with the gentleman 
from Maine (Mr. Allen) and the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and 
the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) and the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Jackson) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
  This amendment fulfills a simple objective. It helps consumers decide 
for themselves whether prescription drug prices are fair. As it stands 
now, consumers know what they pay to a pharmacy for a drug, but they do 
not know what the manufacturer charges for that drug, what the 
manufacturer charges other consumers for it, what the manufacturer 
charges other countries for it, what similar drugs cost. My colleagues 
get the idea.
  This amendment would require manufacturers to disclose to American 
consumers the prices they charge here versus what they charge in other 
industrialized nations.
  The pharmaceutical industries question the accuracy of studies 
comparing prescription drug prices in the U.S. to those in other 
industrialized countries. They have questioned the accuracy of studies 
comparing the price seniors pay to those paid by HMOs. Drug makers 
could put these disputes to rest simply by disclosing their prices.
  Two weeks ago, I took a dozen seniors from Ohio to a Canadian 
pharmacy where they paid one-half, one-third, one-sixth of what it 
would have cost to purchase those same drugs in northeast Ohio.
  When confronted about price differentials like this, the industry 
typically tried to deflect the blame by talking about Canada's 
universal health care system. They imply that the only way to achieve 
lower prices in this country is to adopt the Canadian health care 
system. They imply that Canada pays less for prescription drugs because 
Canadians have a government-run health care program, not because of 
lower prices.
  The drug industry conveniently confuses two different issues. Seniors 
in my district bought prescription drugs in Canada and paid lower 
prices. They did not step into Canada and suddenly become eligible 
under that nation's universal health care system.
  Canada negotiates reasonable drug prices. Its 13 provinces also 
provide universal health care coverage. That means Canadians receive 
assistance towards the purchase of prescription drugs.
  American consumers, in spite of what people here say, in spite of the 
drug industry, American consumers are smart enough to know the 
difference.
  Although the drug industry tends to focus on Canada based on what we 
can glean from retail pricing studies, Canada is not the only nation 
that pays lower prices for drugs. The United States pays the highest 
prices in the world for prescription drugs.
  This amendment says to the drug industry, if those studies are wrong 
or misleading, just show us your prices. Prescription drug companies 
may argue that this is proprietary information or raise the issue of 
price collusion. Of course, they do provide this information to a 
private organization called IMS, and this company makes the information 
available to other companies for a price. So drug companies already 
know each other's prices, so price information is no secret unless one 
is a consumer.
  Americans cannot afford to purchase prescription drugs, and they 
cannot afford not to.
  Under our amendment, consumers would have the power to compare prices 
and quality and value to make smart purchases.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I continue my reservation, and I rise to 
claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) is recognized 
for 5 minutes in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New 
Mexico for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment as well. First, 
I think Members need to think long and hard about whether or not we 
want the Federal Government in the business of keeping the books on 
private industry, any private industry. I believe that it is entirely 
inappropriate for the Federal Government to have such a role.
  Second, looking at the specific language of this amendment, it would 
require every company seeking approval for every new medicine to, and I 
quote, ``agree to a quarterly disclosure during the patent life of the 
drug of the average price charged by the manufacturer in each company 
that is a member of the OECD, which is the Organization for Economic 
Cooperation Development.''
  What does this exactly mean? Many of these OECD countries have price 
controls, and just about all of them do. Are we asking the sponsors, 
asking the companies to provide us with a list of other countries' 
price controls?
  As we know, even in these countries, largely Europe and in the United 
States and Canada, and specifically in countries with price controls 
which we do not have, there is no single price for medicines. Whether 
here at home or abroad, prices vary everywhere. That happens to be the 
marketplace at work.
  All of us here, as I said a few minutes ago, are supportive of 
providing better access to prescription drugs to those who need them. 
Price controls are not the answer. Canada certainly does not have all 
the answers. But as we work to provide greater coverage and access, we 
do not want to undermine today's American private scientific research 
and medical innovation that will continue to find tomorrow's cures for 
the ills of the world and within our own country.
  This type of amendment will do just that. Like its predecessor, it 
needs to be soundly defeated.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from Maine (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment, and it would require 
prescription drug companies to disclose the prices they charge here in 
the United States and in other countries.
  We know from studies in my district and elsewhere that Mainers, for 
example, pay 72 percent more than Canadians and 102 percent more than 
Mexicans for the same drugs and the same quantities from the same 
manufacturers.
  We have the most profitable industry in the country charging the 
highest prices in the world to people who can least afford it. In a 
free enterprise system, we ought to get some more information about 
what those prices are.

[[Page 13769]]


  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, what we are talking about is one of the great health 
care crises facing this country, and that is that millions of Americans 
cannot afford the outrageously high cost of prescription drugs in this 
country.
  They know that an absurd situation exists by which, when an American 
spends $1 for a prescription drug manufactured in the United States, a 
German spends 71 cents, somebody in Sweden spends 68 cents, the United 
Kingdom spends 65 cents, and in Italy 51 cents for the same exact drug.
  So what this amendment says very simply is we want to know the price 
that the pharmaceutical industry is selling that product abroad for. We 
want to know, in fact, how come a Canadian pharmacist can buy 
Tamoxifen, a widely prescribed breast cancer drug, for one-tenth the 
price that an American pharmacist can buy that same product. Meanwhile 
we know that the pharmaceutical industry makes a profit in Canada, 
selling the product at one-tenth the price that our people have to pay 
for it.
  All over this country today, elderly people and many other people are 
making terrible decisions about whether they can afford the 
prescription drugs they need to ease their pain and to keep them alive. 
The more knowledge that we have about the pricing situation in the 
pharmaceutical industry, the better we will be in being able to address 
this crisis.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) insist 
on his point of order?
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) 
withdraw his amendment?
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.


                Amendment No. 48 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. 48 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 pay the salaries and expenses of personnel who make 
     payments to producers of wool and mohair under section 204(d) 
     of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Monday, July 10, 
2000, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say just prefacing my remarks that I have the 
utmost respect for the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) and 
the way he has consistently watched out for the interest of farmers and 
ranchers across the West. For that matter, I would say that I have got 
the utmost respect for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and how 
he watches out for the ranchers in his district, and the same of the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), who is not here right now but I 
suspect who will be walking down toward the floor.
  That having been said, I think what needs to be remembered is, in as 
good of a job as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) will do in 
watching out for ranchers in his district, the larger question always 
needs to be is, that may be good and he is doing the right job of a 
Congressman in protecting folk in his district, but is it the best in 
terms of national policy?
  When I look at wool and mohair subsidies over a long and fairly 
tortured past, I think the answer has to be no. In fact, if anything, I 
see this as more of a horror show, those horror shows where Freddie 
hops up out of the coffin with the chainsaw running; one thought he was 
dead, one thought he was in the coffin to stay, but he is back up and 
at it. That is how these wool and mohair subsidies have gone basically 
over 50 years.
  Because what is interesting is to look back, it was in World War II 
that the United States military recognized that they needed wool and 
mohair as basically a strategic material in the building of uniforms to 
keep troops warm and dry.
  So in 1954 Congress responded to that, and they passed the National 
Wool Act. Yet by the 1960s, the Pentagon had moved on to synthetic 
fibers. So here we are 46 years after the passage of the act, basically 
50 years after the time that Congress moved, the Pentagon moved on to 
something else, still helping to subsidize an industry that was no 
longer strategic in nature. In fact, some of the years, as one goes 
forward in time, wool and mohair would get as much as $200 million 
indirect subsidy.
  Now, in 1993, that all came to an end. It was interesting, Al Gore's 
report, this is Vice President Gore's National Performance Review, 
1993, said that the top 1 percent of sheep raisers capture a core of 
the money, nearly $100,000 each. The national interest does not require 
this program. It provides an unnecessary subsidy for the wealthy.
  It was stopped in 1993 to be phased out in 1995, and yet it is back. 
Freddie has climbed outside of that coffin, he has got the chainsaw 
running, and we are looking at basically $10 million or $11 million in 
subsidy back to wool and mohair.
  The question that I think that needs to be asked is, is this in the 
best interest of the overall taxpayer? I think no, one, because of what 
was pointed out in Gore's review; two, what would be pointed out in 
programs like the fact that Sam Donaldson, not exactly a New Mexico 
sheep farmer, had gotten $97,000 in direct wool payments a couple years 
back, in fact back just prior to 1995 in the phase-out of law.
  The more than important question, though, because that part has 
ended, is what we are talking about here are the acts of the market 
versus the acts of God. If the local pizzeria goes out of business or 
the local hardware store goes out of business or the local video store 
goes out of business as a result of acts of the market, we do not 
subsidize that pizzeria. Should we do any differently with this wool 
and mohair?
  The third point that I would make would be we are talking about a 
program. If we do not keep this out, it will become more permanent in 
nature.
  It is interesting to me, this is in the June 24, 2000, issue of 
National Journal, Jewel Richardson, the first vice president of the 
Texas Sheep and Goat Raisers Association, hopes to put in a permanent 
program, their own words according to National Journal.
  So I think we have got something that, a, could become a permanent 
program and is not a temporary help in time of need; and, b, is 
something that costs the taxpayers a whole lot of money to the benefit 
of a very few congressional districts.
  Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) has 30 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. 
Skeen) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I 
understand where my friend is coming from, but he keeps talking about 
the Wool and Mohair Act. That is gone. The Congress took it away, voted 
it out, in 1994.

[[Page 13770]]

  Now, the money in question in the supplemental is a little bit 
different question, because from 1995 to 1998, domestic mohair 
production has declined 60 percent in the United States from 12 million 
pounds down to 5. In the wool area, the lamb industry, the market 
depression has driven over 25,000 sheep producers out of business in 
the 1990s. Now, the gentleman might say this is fine. If this is the 
market doing this and making this happen, this is in the spirit of 
voting out the wool and mohair program. But that is not what the facts 
bear out.
  When we look at the European Union this year, I say to the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), the European Union will spend $2 
billion subsidizing their wool producers. Subsidizing their wool 
producers. The answer of the gentleman from South Carolina is to take 
away the help that was put into the supplemental from our industry that 
is struggling to survive in the international marketplace.
  What we are trying to do is get some support from the Congress, and 
there was some support given, in recognition that the wool and mohair 
industry is now in fact trying to pull themselves back up by their 
bootstraps and compete. And it seems to me that an amendment that 
strikes $11 million out of a $7.1 billion total appropriation for 
recognizing the depressed prices that are occurring in all of 
agriculture is a little bit mean spirited, and it is not certainly up 
to the character of my friend from South Carolina.
  The gentleman's amendment, and I say to my colleagues, the Sanford 
amendment is misguided. It is based on some old historical facts that 
are no longer prevalent. The Sanford amendment sends a signal to 
domestic producers that their government does not stand behind them in 
the face of unfair trade.
  I would also point out to my colleagues that the industry has won a 
section 201. The International Trade Commission has found in favor of 
the domestic industry; that they have been experiencing unfair trade 
practices by other countries and, therefore, were entitled to $100 
million in compensation as a result of what the ITC has found.
  It seems to me that this amendment should be defeated today. It is 
well-intentioned but very misguided. These two industries are doing 
everything they can to pull themselves up by their bootstraps to 
survive in this marketplace. They need a little assistance from the 
Congress to do it.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The President just recently signed into law legislation that 
reauthorizes the issuance of wool and mohair payments. Rural America 
and American farmers are facing an economic crisis, and disaster 
assistance has been provided to almost every segment of agriculture in 
the last few years. I believe it is unfair to single out wool and 
mohair producers and to prohibit them from receiving financial 
assistance.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the gentleman's amendment as it is 
punitive and targets a small industry facing extraordinarily difficult 
times.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just put this on the scorecard of two wrongs do 
not make a right. EU absolutely does subsidize its wool and mohair 
producers. But when we look at New Zealand and Australia, we do not see 
that being the case. I think we should look more at the New Zealand and 
the Australian model than the EU example.
  Secondly, we are talking about a small industry here, but nobody goes 
out to help and subsidize the local pizzeria when they go out of 
business, the local video store, or the local hardware store. And I 
think we should be moving toward free markets. Because if we really 
want to reinvigorate this society of ours, I think it rests on free 
markets and the competitive forces that should take place.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla).
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  I am so grateful for the strong bipartisan support that we have had 
for this provision in this bill for some time now. The gentleman from 
New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) should be thanked for recognizing 
the tremendous need out there for wool and mohair producers.
  For anyone to try to draw a parallel between difficulties faced with 
small businesses in this country, like pizzerias and bakeries, for 
goodness sakes, is ridiculous. Foreign nations do not subsidize their 
own pizzerias, their hardware stores, and their auto parts stores. We 
are talking about foreign nations that unfairly subsidize their areas 
in agriculture. This is an area where wool and mohair producers have 
been subsidized to a great unfair advantage. As the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm) pointed out, that gives competitors a tremendous 
advantage over a lot of our producers in this country who are suffering 
tremendously.
  Falling commodity prices over the years and other factors, drought 
and so forth, have affected agriculture across the board in this 
country. This bill that makes up the whole of this aid covers peanut 
farmers and tobacco farmers. There are more AMTA payments in this bill. 
Why for goodness sake are we singling out one small portion of this 
bill in agriculture that has suffered equally as other areas in 
agriculture have other the last few years?
  I cannot figure out why this amendment is singling out one small 
group of all of American agriculture to try to pick on them and leave 
them out in the cold. If my colleague could only see the hardships that 
many of them have faced throughout the last several years, I think he 
would change his mind.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment and urge 
my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  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. 68 Offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana

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

       Amendment No. 68 offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana:
       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 expended for a vaccine-related Federal advisory committee 
     (Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee) 
     that grants a waiver on applicable conflicts of interest 
     rules pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act and 
     sections 202 through 209 of title 18, United States Code, and 
     regulations issued thereunder.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Monday, July 10, 
2000, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the health of every American child is affected by 
decisions made at the Department of Health and Human Services about 
vaccines. Those decisions have to be made free of conflicts of 
interest, and right now that just is not the case.

[[Page 13771]]

  Health and Human Services relies on two advisory committees to give 
scientific advice on vaccine policy. Unfortunately, those advisory 
committees are dominated by the pharmaceutical industry. HHS routinely 
gives doctors with serious conflicts of interest waivers to vote on 
vaccine policies.
  My amendment stands for a simple proposition. We should be getting 
the best scientific advice possible and it should not be tainted by 
possible conflicts of interest. We are going to hear from the other 
side that if my amendment passes they will not be able to find anyone 
to serve on these committees. That is just not so.
  The Committee on Government Reform has done an extensive 
investigation into these advisory committees. We took a close look at 
their votes to approve the rotavirus vaccine. That vote has had 
disastrous results. Children developed serious bowel obstructions. They 
needed emergency surgery. And one child died. The vaccine had to be 
pulled from the market 3 months after the official recommendation.
  Did this problem come up out of the blue? No. There was evidence of 
this problem in the clinical trials. This and other problems were 
discussed during the advisory committee meetings. Several Members had 
concerns. One doctor had serious reservations and expressed them. Yet 
every doctor on the committee voted to recommend approval of the 
vaccine. Why? Well, three out of the five FDA advisory committee 
members had financial ties to the drug companies that were developing 
the rotavirus vaccine.
  One of those doctors received $255,000 a year from the maker of the 
vaccine, Wyeth Lederle. Another worked at a university that received 
$75,000 from Lederle's parent company. Yet they got waivers so they 
could vote on the vaccine.
  The CDC routinely grants waivers from conflict of interest to every 
member of the advisory committee. The chairman of the CDC's advisory 
committee owned 600 shares of stock in a drug company that is 
developing a competing rotavirus vaccine.
  Now, I am not saying these doctors are corrupt or had any malicious 
intent. What I am saying is that when someone gets money from a 
company, especially large sums of money, it affects that individual's 
judgment. And I am not alone in my concern about conflicts of interest. 
Last year, the New England Journal of Medicine had a scandal on their 
hands. They found that 18 doctors who wrote articles about drugs for 
their Journal had financial ties to the companies that made the drugs.
  The Journal was seriously concerned and wrote an editorial about it, 
and here is what they had to say. ``What is at issue is not whether 
researchers can be bought in the sense of a quid pro quo, it is that 
close and remunerative collaboration with a company naturally creates 
goodwill on the part of researchers and the hope that the largess will 
continue. This attitude can subtly influence scientific judgment.''
  They were right. Conflicts of interest are a problem and we need to 
do something about it. My amendment would prohibit HHS from granting 
waivers to members of vaccine-related committees who have serious 
conflicts of interest. If the New England Journal of Medicine can do 
it, HHS can do it, and there should not be anything controversial about 
saying we want the best advice possible without conflicts of interest. 
Our children's health and well-being depend on fair and impartial 
judgment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) rise in 
opposition?
  Mr. SKEEN. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I think the Burton amendment is a well-meaning amendment that will do 
little to help ethics, but it will do irreparable harm to vaccine 
development. The amendment blows up a carefully balanced process 
proposed in 1989 by President Bush which allows narrow and necessary 
conflict of interest waivers to enhance the government's ability to 
support the development of crucial vaccines.
  The amendment is opposed by the Office of Government Ethics itself, 
and that agency says, ``The government would be depriving itself of 
much of the best and most relevant outside expertise in many areas. The 
amendment would prohibit waivers for financial interests that are so 
insubstantial, remote, or inconsequential that they are typically 
permitted even for regular full-time government employees.'' They go on 
to say, ``Existing law strikes the correct balance between protecting 
the government from inappropriate conflicts of interest and recognizing 
the need for temporary experts who may have unavoidable conflicts in 
relevant fields of inquiry.''
  In short, even the agency that enforces government ethics says this 
is a bad idea. It may be well meaning, but it certainly, in the way it 
would be implemented, would wreck our vaccine development program.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time to close 
debate.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) controls 1\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I understand the concerns of those who 
are saying, well, there are just no experts around who could then be 
able to safely review these vaccines. However, the conflict of interest 
issue cannot go away that easily.
  I am concerned as to how we protect the integrity of scientific 
review and the integrity of the vaccine approval process if we do not 
make sure that there is an attempt to separate the interests of the 
vaccine makers from those who are doing the oversight.
  This is a quandary, but I think that the amendment at least creates 
the opportunity to debate this issue, to bring it out in the open, and 
to ask Members of Congress to reflect as to the condition that we have 
here, which is that there are patent conflicts of interest here. And in 
that sense, I support this amendment.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Let me just say that we have held numerous hearings on this issue. We 
have found through the hearings that many of the people on these 
advisory committees have financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry. 
They have financial ties directly to the companies that are producing 
the drugs that they are voting on, the vaccinations they are voting on. 
We have just expressed clearly that children who took the rotavirus 
vaccine after there had been reservations about it, one died, and 
several hundred got sick and had to go to the emergency room. There 
were conflicts of interest. That needs to be eliminated.
  There are a lot of doctors and scientists we could get who did not 
have those conflicts of interest, those ties to the pharmaceutical 
industry, that could give an impartial judgment. That is what we need 
to do to protect the health of these children.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in opposition to the amendment. Let me explain what this 
extreme restriction on the Food and Drug Administration would do. The 
amendment would not allow funding for an advisory committee that grants 
conflict of interest waivers. The effect would be that the top experts 
in the field of vaccine research would not be able to advise the 
Federal Government about vaccines and biological products.
  The conflict of interest waivers exist so that the top experts, the 
ones you would want to consult if your family member were ill, can 
advise government agencies. These top scientists are few in number and 
very specialized. Most of them have worked in research

[[Page 13772]]

sponsored by industry at some point in their careers. Congress devised 
the waiver system so that such experts could serve the Government when 
the need for their services outweighed the potential of conflict of 
interest due to financial ties to industry.
  Since the field of biological vaccine research is specialized and 
unique, the conflict of interest waivers are necessary. The granting of 
a waiver is not pro forma but a measured decision by an impartial 
party. In some cases, waivers are granted only for participation in the 
advisory group discussion, and the individual is not permitted to vote 
on the advisory committee recommendation.
  I would also like to draw your attention to the term ``advisory.'' 
Advisory committees make recommendations to FDA but do not vote on 
product approvals. Product approval decisions are made by federally 
employed scientists.
  I would ask my colleagues not to cripple the vaccine advisory 
committee system by making it impossible to recruit the appropriate 
level of scientific expertise. Please vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKEEN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Is the gentleman aware that these advisory 
committee members testified before our committee and very clearly had 
conflicts of interest and yet they still voted on this? If we grant 
waivers to those people, we are going to continue the process which 
endangers kids in this country.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKEEN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to point out 
the existing law was proposed by President Bush and was enacted with 
broad bipartisan support. We have got to have the people who have the 
knowledge and expertise to be on these advisory committees. If the 
Burton amendment is agreed to, those people will not be serving, and 
that will be a disservice to the children of this country that want to 
be sure, for parents, that the vaccines have been reviewed by those who 
can give us the best information. The conflicts of interest that the 
gentleman from Indiana referred to, and I sat through those hearings as 
well, were quite remote, had nothing to do with the vaccine approval. 
In some cases they involved people who because of their knowledge and 
expertise in this area had worked for pharmaceutical companies because 
they were the best experts in the country to advise on these vaccines.
  I would hope that Members will oppose the Burton amendment and not 
disregard a law that is so important for the best experts in virology, 
biology, statistics, pediatrics, and other scientific disciplines to 
serve as volunteers in the public interest.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKEEN. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would simply 
emphasize again the Office of Government Ethics itself opposes this 
amendment, saying that the Government would be deprived of much of the 
best and most relevant outside expertise in many areas.
  This amendment is well meaning, but its principal victim if it passes 
will be children who will get sick and die because of the lack of 
adequate vaccines.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. 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 Indiana (Mr. Burton) 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


                Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Kucinich

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

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Kucinich:
       Page 96, after line 7, insert the following new title:

        TITLE IX--GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD RIGHT TO KNOW ACT

     SEC. 901. SHORT TITLE.

       (a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the 
     ``Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act''.

     SEC. 902. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds as follows:
       (1) The process of genetically engineering foods results in 
     the material change of such foods.
       (2) The Congress has previously required that all foods 
     bear labels that reveal material facts to consumers.
       (3) Federal agencies have failed to uphold Congressional 
     intent by allowing genetically engineered foods to be 
     marketed, sold and otherwise used without labeling that 
     reveals material facts to the public.
       (4) Consumers wish to know whether the food they purchase 
     and consume contains or is produced with a genetically 
     engineered material for a variety of reasons, including the 
     potential transfer of allergens into food and other health 
     risks, concerns about potential environmental risks 
     associated with the genetic engineering of crops, and 
     religiously and ethically based dietary restrictions.
       (5) Consumers have a right to know whether the food they 
     purchase contains or was produced with genetically engineered 
     material.
       (6) Reasonably available technology permits the detection 
     in food of genetically engineered material, generally 
     acknowledged to be as low as 0.1 percent.

     SEC. 903. LABELING REGARDING GENETICALLY ENGINEERED MATERIAL; 
                   AMENDMENTS TO FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC 
                   ACT.

       (a) In General.--Section 403 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 343) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following paragraph:
       ``(t)(1) If it contains a genetically engineered material, 
     or was produced with a genetically engineered material, 
     unless it bears a label (or labeling, in the case of a raw 
     agricultural commodity, other than the sale of such a 
     commodity at retail) that provides notices in accordance with 
     the following:
       ``(A) A notice as follows: `GENETICALLY ENGINEERED'.
       ``(B) A notice as follows: `UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT 
     NOTICE: THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS A GENETICALLY ENGINEERED 
     MATERIAL, OR WAS PRODUCED WITH A GENETICALLY ENGINEERED 
     MATERIAL'.
       ``(C) The notice required in clause (A) immediately 
     precedes the notice required in clause (B) and is not less 
     than twice the size of the notice required in clause (B).
       ``(D) The notice required in clause (B) is of the same size 
     as would apply if the notice provided nutrition information 
     that is required in paragraph (q)(1).
       ``(E) The notices required in clauses (A) and (B) are 
     clearly legible and conspicuous.
       ``(2) For purposes of subparagraph (1):
       ``(A) The term `genetically engineered material' means 
     material derived from any part of a genetically engineered 
     organism, without regard to whether the altered molecular or 
     cellular characteristics of the organism are detectable in 
     the material.
       ``(B) The term `genetically engineered organism' means--
       ``(i) an organism that has been altered at the molecular or 
     cellular level by means that are not possible under natural 
     conditions or processes (including but not limited to 
     recombinant DNA and RNA techniques, cell fusion, 
     microencapsulation, macro-encapsulation, gene deletion and 
     doubling, introducing a foreign gene, and changing the 
     positions of genes), other than a means consisting 
     exclusively of breeding, conjugation, fermentation, 
     hybridization, in vitro fertilization, or tissue culture, and
       ``(ii) an organism made through sexual or asexual 
     reproduction (or both) involving an organism described in 
     subclause (i), if possessing any of the altered molecular or 
     cellular characteristics of the organism so described.
       ``(3) For purposes of subparagraph (1), a food shall be 
     considered to have been produced with a genetically 
     engineered material if--
       ``(A) the organism from which the food is derived has been 
     injected or otherwise treated with a genetically engineered 
     material (except that the use of manure as a fertilizer for 
     raw agricultural commodities may not be construed to mean 
     that such commodities are produced with a genetically 
     engineered material);
       ``(B) the animal from which the food is derived has been 
     fed genetically engineered material, or
       ``(C) the food contains an ingredient that is a food to 
     which clause (A) or (B) applies.
       ``(4) This paragraph does not apply to food that--

[[Page 13773]]

       ``(A) is served in restaurants or other establishments in 
     which food is served for immediate human consumption,
       ``(B) is processed and prepared primarily in a retail 
     establishment, is ready for human consumption, which is of 
     the type described in clause (A), and is offered for sale to 
     consumers but not for immediate human consumption in such 
     establishment and is not offered for sale outside such 
     establishment, or
       ``(C) is a medical food as defined in section 5(b) of the 
     Orphan Drug Act.''.
       (b) Civil Penalties.--Section 303 of the Federal Food, 
     Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 333) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following subsection:
       ``(h)(1) With respect to a violation of section 301(a), 
     301(b), or 301(c) involving the misbranding of food within 
     the meaning of section 403(t), any person engaging in such a 
     violation shall be liable to the United States for a civil 
     penalty in an amount not to exceed $100,000 for each such 
     violation.
       ``(2) Paragraphs (3) through (5) of subsection (g) apply 
     with respect to a civil penalty under paragraph (1) of this 
     subsection to the same extent and in the same manner as such 
     paragraphs (3) through (5) apply with respect to a civil 
     penalty under paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (g).''.
       (c) Guaranty.--
       (1) In general.--Section 303(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, 
     and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 333(d)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``(d)'' and inserting ``(d)(1)''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following paragraph:
       ``(2)(A) No person shall be subject to the penalties of 
     subsection (a)(1) or (h) for a violation of section 301(a), 
     301(b), or 301(c) involving the misbranding of food within 
     the meaning of section 403(t) if such person (referred to in 
     this paragraph as the `recipient') establishes a guaranty or 
     undertaking signed by, and containing the name and address 
     of, the person residing in the United States from whom the 
     recipient received in good faith the food (including the 
     receipt of seeds to grow raw agricultural commodities), to 
     the effect that (within the meaning of section 403(t)) the 
     food does not contain a genetically engineered material or 
     was not produced with a genetically engineered material.
       ``(B) In the case of a recipient who with respect to a food 
     establishes a guaranty or undertaking in accordance with 
     subparagraph (A), the exclusion under such subparagraph from 
     being subject to penalties applies to the recipient without 
     regard to the use of the food by the recipient, including--
       ``(i) processing the food,
       ``(ii) using the food as an ingredient in a food product,
       ``(iii) repacking the food, or
       ``(iv) growing, raising, or otherwise producing the 
     food.''.
       (2) False guaranty.--Section 301(h) of the Federal Food, 
     Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 331(h)) is amended by 
     inserting ``or 303(d)(2)'' after ``303(c)(2)''.
       (d) Unintended Contamination.--Section 303(d) of the 
     Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by 
     subsection (c)(1) of this section, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following paragraph:
       ``(3)(A) No person shall be subject to the penalties of 
     subsection (a)(1) or (h) for a violation of section 301(a), 
     301(b), or 301(c) involving the misbranding of food within 
     the meaning of section 403(t) if--
       ``(i) such person is an agricultural producer and the 
     violation occurs because food that is grown, raised, or 
     otherwise produced by such producer, which food does not 
     contain a genetically engineered material and was not 
     produced with a genetically engineered material, is 
     contaminated with a food that contains a genetically 
     engineered material or was produced with a genetically 
     engineered material (including contamination by mingling the 
     two), and
       ``(ii) such contamination is not intended by the 
     agricultural producer.
       ``(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to an agricultural 
     producer to the extent that the contamination occurs as a 
     result of the negligence of the producer.''.

     SEC. 904. LABELING REGARDING GENETICALLY ENGINEERED MATERIAL; 
                   AMENDMENTS TO FEDERAL MEAT INSPECTION ACT.

       (a) Requirements.--The Federal Meat Inspection Act is 
     amended by inserting after section 7 (21 U.S.C. 607) the 
     following section:

     ``SEC. 7A. REQUIREMENTS FOR LABELING REGARDING GENETICALLY 
                   ENGINEERED MATERIAL.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) The term `meat food' means a carcass, part of a 
     carcass, meat, or meat food product that is derived from 
     cattle, sheep, swine, goats, horses, mules, or other equines 
     and is capable of use as human food.
       ``(2) The term `genetically engineered material' means 
     material derived from any part of a genetically engineered 
     organism, without regard to whether the altered molecular or 
     cellular characteristics of the organism are detectable in 
     the material (and without regard to whether the organism is 
     capable of use as human food).
       ``(3) The term `genetically engineered organism' means--
       ``(A) an organism that has been altered at the molecular or 
     cellular level by means that are not possible under natural 
     conditions or processes (including but not limited to 
     recombinant DNA and RNA techniques, cell fusion, 
     microencapsulation, macro-encapsulation, gene deletion and 
     doubling, introducing a foreign gene, and changing the 
     positions of genes), other than a means consisting 
     exclusively of breeding, conjugation, fermentation, 
     hybridization, in vitro fertilization, or tissue culture; and
       ``(B) an organism made through sexual or asexual 
     reproduction (or both) involving an organism described in 
     subparagraph (A), if possessing any of the altered molecular 
     or cellular characteristics of the organism so described.
       ``(b) Labeling Requirement.--
       ``(1) Required labeling to avoid misbranding.--For purposes 
     of sections 1(n) and 10, a meat food is misbranded if it--
       ``(A) contains a genetically engineered material or was 
     produced with a genetically engineered material; and
       ``(B) does not bear a label (or include labeling, in the 
     case of a meat food that is not packaged in a container) that 
     provides, in a clearly legible and conspicuous manner, the 
     notices described in subsection (c).
       ``(2) Rule of construction.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1)(A), a meat food shall be considered to have been produced 
     with a genetically engineered material if--
       ``(A) the organism from which the food is derived has been 
     injected or otherwise treated with a genetically engineered 
     material;
       ``(B) the animal from which the food is derived has been 
     fed genetically engineered material; or
       ``(C) the food contains an ingredient that is a food to 
     which subparagraph (A) or (B) applies.
       ``(c) Specifics of Label Notices.--
       ``(1) Required notices.--The notices referred to in 
     subsection (b)(1)(B) are the following:
       ``(A) A notice as follows: `GENETICALLY ENGINEERED'.
       ``(B) A notice as follows: `UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT 
     NOTICE: THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS A GENETICALLY ENGINEERED 
     MATERIAL, OR WAS PRODUCED WITH A GENETICALLY ENGINEERED 
     MATERIAL'.
       ``(2) Location and size.--(A) The notice required in 
     paragraph (1)(A) shall immediately precede the notice 
     required in paragraph (1)(B) and shall be not less than twice 
     the size of the notice required in paragraph (1)(B).
       ``(B) The notice required in paragraph (1)(B) shall be of 
     the same size as would apply if the notice provided nutrition 
     information that is required in section 403(q)(1) of the 
     Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
       ``(d) Exceptions to Requirements.--Subsection (a) does not 
     apply to any meat food that--
       ``(1) is served in restaurants or other establishments in 
     which food is served for immediate human consumption; or
       ``(2) is processed and prepared primarily in a retail 
     establishment, is ready for human consumption, is offered for 
     sale to consumers but not for immediate human consumption in 
     such establishment, and is not offered for sale outside such 
     establishment.
       ``(e) Guaranty.--
       ``(1) In general.--A packer, processor, or other person 
     shall not be considered to have violated the requirements of 
     this section with respect to the labeling of meat food if the 
     packer, processor, or other person (referred to in this 
     subsection as the `recipient') establishes a guaranty or 
     undertaking signed by, and containing the name and address 
     of, the person residing in the United States from whom the 
     recipient received in good faith the meat food or the animal 
     from which the meat food was derived, or received in good 
     faith food intended to be fed to such animal, to the effect 
     that the meat food, or such animal, or such food, 
     respectively, does not contain genetically engineered 
     material or was not produced with a genetically engineered 
     material.
       ``(2) Scope of guaranty.--In the case of a recipient who 
     establishes a guaranty or undertaking in accordance with 
     paragraph (1), the exclusion under such paragraph from being 
     subject to penalties applies to the recipient without regard 
     to the use of the meat food by the recipient (or the use by 
     the recipient of the animal from which the meat food was 
     derived, or of food intended to be fed to such animal), 
     including--
       ``(A) processing the meat food;
       ``(B) using the meat food as an ingredient in another food 
     product;
       ``(C) packing or repacking the meat food; or
       ``(D) raising the animal from which the meat food was 
     derived.
       ``(3) False guaranty.--It is a violation of this Act for a 
     person to give a guaranty or undertaking in accordance with 
     paragraph (1) that the person knows or has reason to know is 
     false.
       ``(f) Civil Penalties.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may assess a civil penalty 
     against a person that violates subsection (b) or (c)(3) in an 
     amount not to exceed $100,000 for each such violation.
       ``(2) Notice and opportunity for hearing.--A civil penalty 
     under paragraph (1) shall be assessed by the Secretary by an 
     order made on the record after opportunity

[[Page 13774]]

     for a hearing provided in accordance with this subparagraph 
     and section 554 of title 5, United States Code. Before 
     issuing such an order, the Secretary shall give written 
     notice to the person to be assessed a civil penalty under 
     such order of the Secretary's proposal to issue such order 
     and provide such person an opportunity for a hearing on the 
     order. In the course of any investigation, the Secretary may 
     issue subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony of 
     witnesses and the production of evidence that relates to the 
     matter under investigation.
       ``(3) Considerations regarding amount of penalty.--In 
     determining the amount of a civil penalty under paragraph 
     (1), the Secretary shall take into account the nature, 
     circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation or 
     violations and, with respect to the violator, ability to pay, 
     effect on ability to continue to do business, any history of 
     prior such violations, the degree of culpability, and such 
     other matters as justice may require.
       ``(4) Certain authorities.--The Secretary may compromise, 
     modify, or remit, with or without conditions, any civil 
     penalty under paragraph (1). The amount of such penalty, when 
     finally determined, or the amount agreed upon in compromise, 
     may be deducted from any sums owing by the United States to 
     the person charged.
       ``(5) Judicial review.--Any person who requested, in 
     accordance with paragraph (2), a hearing respecting the 
     assessment of a civil penalty under paragraph (1) and who is 
     aggrieved by an order assessing a civil penalty may file a 
     petition for judicial review of such order with the United 
     States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
     or for any other circuit in which such person resides or 
     transacts business. Such a petition may only be filed within 
     the 60-day period beginning on the date the order making such 
     assessment was issued.
       ``(6) Failure to pay.--If a person fails to pay an 
     assessment of a civil penalty--
       ``(A) after the order making the assessment becomes final, 
     and if such person does not file a petition for judicial 
     review of the order in accordance with paragraph (5); or
       ``(B) after a court in an action brought under paragraph 
     (4) has entered a final judgment in favor of the Secretary;

     the Attorney General shall recover the amount assessed (plus 
     interest at currently prevailing rates from the date of the 
     expiration of the 60-day period referred to in paragraph (5) 
     or the date of such final judgment, as the case may be) in an 
     action brought in any appropriate district court of the 
     United States. In such an action, the validity, amount, and 
     appropriateness of such penalty shall not be subject to 
     review.''.
       (b) Inclusion of Labeling Requirements in Definition of 
     Misbranded.--Section 1(n) of the Federal Meat Inspection Act 
     (21 U.S.C. 601(n)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (11);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (12) and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following paragraph:
       ``(13) if it fails to bear a label or labeling as required 
     by section 7A.''.

     SEC. 905. LABELING REGARDING GENETICALLY ENGINEERED MATERIAL; 
                   AMENDMENTS TO POULTRY PRODUCTS INSPECTION ACT.

       The Poultry Products Inspection Act is amended by inserting 
     after section 8 (21 U.S.C. 457) the following section:

     ``SEC. 8A. REQUIREMENTS FOR LABELING REGARDING GENETICALLY 
                   ENGINEERED MATERIAL.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) The term `genetically engineered material' means 
     material derived from any part of a genetically engineered 
     organism, without regard to whether the altered molecular or 
     cellular characteristics of the organism are detectable in 
     the material (and without regard to whether the organism is 
     capable of use as human food).
       ``(2) The term `genetically engineered organism' means--
       ``(A) an organism that has been altered at the molecular or 
     cellular level by means that are not possible under natural 
     conditions or processes (including but not limited to 
     recombinant DNA and RNA techniques, cell fusion, 
     microencapsulation, macro-encapsulation, gene deletion and 
     doubling, introducing a foreign gene, and changing the 
     positions of genes), other than a means consisting 
     exclusively of breeding, conjugation, fermentation, 
     hybridization, in vitro fertilization, or tissue culture; and
       ``(B) an organism made through sexual or asexual 
     reproduction (or both) involving an organism described in 
     subparagraph (A), if possessing any of the altered molecular 
     or cellular characteristics of the organism so described.
       ``(b) Labeling Requirement.--
       ``(1) Required labeling to avoid misbranding.--For purposes 
     of sections 4(h) and 9(a), a poultry product is misbranded if 
     it--
       ``(A) contains a genetically engineered material or was 
     produced with a genetically engineered material; and
       ``(B) does not bear a label (or include labeling, in the 
     case of a poultry product that is not packaged in a 
     container) that provides, in a clearly legible and 
     conspicuous manner, the notices described in subsection (c).
       ``(2) Rule of construction.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1)(A), a poultry product shall be considered to have been 
     produced with a genetically engineered material if--
       ``(A) the poultry from which the food is derived has been 
     injected or otherwise treated with a genetically engineered 
     material;
       ``(B) the poultry from which the food is derived has been 
     fed genetically engineered material; or
       ``(C) the food contains an ingredient that is a food to 
     which subparagraph (A) or (B) applies.
       ``(c) Specifics of Label Notices.--
       ``(1) Required notices.--The notices referred to in 
     subsection (b)(1)(B) are the following:
       ``(A) A notice as follows: `GENETICALLY ENGINEERED'.
       ``(B) A notice as follows: `UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT 
     NOTICE: THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS A GENETICALLY ENGINEERED 
     MATERIAL, OR WAS PRODUCED WITH A GENETICALLY ENGINEERED 
     MATERIAL'.
       ``(2) Location and size.--(A) The notice required in 
     paragraph (1)(A) shall immediately precede the notice 
     required in paragraph (1)(B) and shall be not less than twice 
     the size of the notice required in paragraph (1)(B).
       ``(B) The notice required in paragraph (1)(B) shall be of 
     the same size as would apply if the notice provided nutrition 
     information that is required in section 403(q)(1) of the 
     Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
       ``(d) Exceptions to Requirements.--Subsection (a) does not 
     apply to any poultry product that--
       ``(1) is served in restaurants or other establishments in 
     which food is served for immediate human consumption; or
       ``(2) is processed and prepared primarily in a retail 
     establishment, is ready for human consumption, is offered for 
     sale to consumers but not for immediate human consumption in 
     such establishment, and is not offered for sale outside such 
     establishment.
       ``(e) Guaranty.--
       ``(1) In general.--An official establishment or other 
     person shall not be considered to have violated the 
     requirements of this section with respect to the labeling of 
     a poultry product if the official establishment or other 
     person (referred to in this subsection as the `recipient') 
     establishes a guaranty or undertaking signed by, and 
     containing the name and address of, the person residing in 
     the United States from whom the recipient received in good 
     faith the poultry product or the poultry from which the 
     poultry product was derived, or received in good faith food 
     intended to be fed to poultry, to the effect that the poultry 
     product, poultry, or such food, respectively, does not 
     contain genetically engineered material or was not produced 
     with a genetically engineered material.
       ``(2) Scope of guaranty.--In the case of a recipient who 
     establishes a guaranty or undertaking in accordance with 
     paragraph (1), the exclusion under such paragraph from being 
     subject to penalties applies to the recipient without regard 
     to the use of the poultry product by the recipient (or the 
     use by the recipient of the poultry from which the poultry 
     product was derived, or of food intended to be fed to such 
     poultry), including--
       ``(A) processing the poultry;
       ``(B) using the poultry product as an ingredient in another 
     food product;
       ``(C) packing or repacking the poultry product; or
       ``(D) raising the poultry from which the poultry product 
     was derived.
       ``(3) False guaranty.--It is a violation of this Act for a 
     person to give a guaranty or undertaking in accordance with 
     paragraph (1) that the person knows or has reason to know is 
     false.
       ``(f) Civil Penalties.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may assess a civil penalty 
     against a person that violates subsection (b) or (c)(3) in an 
     amount not to exceed $100,000 for each such violation.
       ``(2) Notice and opportunity for hearing.--A civil penalty 
     under paragraph (1) shall be assessed by the Secretary by an 
     order made on the record after opportunity for a hearing 
     provided in accordance with this subparagraph and section 554 
     of title 5, United States Code. Before issuing such an order, 
     the Secretary shall give written notice to the person to be 
     assessed a civil penalty under such order of the Secretary's 
     proposal to issue such order and provide such person an 
     opportunity for a hearing on the order. In the course of any 
     investigation, the Secretary may issue subpoenas requiring 
     the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production 
     of evidence that relates to the matter under investigation.
       ``(3) Considerations regarding amount of penalty.--In 
     determining the amount of a civil penalty under paragraph 
     (1), the Secretary shall take into account the nature, 
     circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation or 
     violations and, with respect to the violator, ability to pay, 
     effect on ability to continue to do business, any history of 
     prior such violations, the degree of culpability, and such 
     other matters as justice may require.

[[Page 13775]]

       ``(4) Certain authorities.--The Secretary may compromise, 
     modify, or remit, with or without conditions, any civil 
     penalty under paragraph (1). The amount of such penalty, when 
     finally determined, or the amount agreed upon in compromise, 
     may be deducted from any sums owing by the United States to 
     the person charged.
       ``(5) Judicial review.--Any person who requested, in 
     accordance with paragraph (2), a hearing respecting the 
     assessment of a civil penalty under paragraph (1) and who is 
     aggrieved by an order assessing a civil penalty may file a 
     petition for judicial review of such order with the United 
     States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
     or for any other circuit in which such person resides or 
     transacts business. Such a petition may only be filed within 
     the 60-day period beginning on the date the order making such 
     assessment was issued.
       ``(6) Failure to pay.--If a person fails to pay an 
     assessment of a civil penalty--
       ``(A) after the order making the assessment becomes final, 
     and if such person does not file a petition for judicial 
     review of the order in accordance with paragraph (5); or
       ``(B) after a court in an action brought under paragraph 
     (4) has entered a final judgment in favor of the Secretary;

     the Attorney General shall recover the amount assessed (plus 
     interest at currently prevailing rates from the date of the 
     expiration of the 60-day period referred to in paragraph (5) 
     or the date of such final judgment, as the case may be) in an 
     action brought in any appropriate district court of the 
     United States. In such an action, the validity, amount, and 
     appropriateness of such penalty shall not be subject to 
     review.''.
       (b) Inclusion of Labeling Requirements in Definition of 
     Misbranded.--Section 4(h) of the Poultry Products Inspection 
     Act (21 U.S.C. 453(h)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (11);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (12) and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following paragraph:
       ``(13) if it fails to bear a label or labeling as required 
     by section 8A.''.

     SEC. 906. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This title and the amendments made by this title take 
     effect upon the expiration of the 180-day period beginning on 
     the date of the enactment of this title.

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico reserves a point of 
order.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Monday, July 10, 2000, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and the gentleman from New Mexico 
(Mr. Skeen) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, last year 100 million acres of genetically engineered 
crops were planted in the United States. Last year the American people 
consumed dozens of products made of genetically engineered materials 
without any knowledge or understanding of some of the issues which are 
sweeping this world concerning genetically engineered food. The 
countries of the European Union, Australia, New Zealand and Japan are 
now discussing labeling regimes which would give people the right to 
know what they are eating, which would give people the right to know if 
food they are eating is genetically engineered, because concerns have 
been expressed all over the world about the possible allergenicity of 
genetically engineered food, possible toxicity, transfer of antibiotic 
resistance, and unintended side effects that come with this technology.
  When the Food and Drug Administration approved genetically engineered 
food, they said that such food was substantially equivalent to 
conventional foods. But the fact of the matter is that when you are 
using a gene gun to shoot a gene from a different species into a target 
to be genetically engineered, you are hardly relying on nature. You are 
relying on a process, the safety of which has not been proven and the 
safety of which should have been checked out 10 years before these 
products were introduced into our food supply.
  We know some of the stories, what happened with the monarch butterfly 
in one study where pollen which migrated from genetically engineered 
corn went to the milkweed plants on which monarch butterflies fed and 
in this study of Cornell University half of the monarch butterflies in 
this population were killed.
  Now, there are some serious questions raised about what happens when 
genetic material moves across a distance, settles on other crops and 
can create unintended side effects. People have a right to know if 
their food has been altered in any way. That is one of the reasons why 
and it is almost a fundamental thing that is so uniquely American 
because years ago this Congress fought successfully for bills which 
forced the FDA to have manufacturers disclose all the contents of the 
food that we eat.
  Imagine if you had a problem with your diet where you had to be 
concerned about the fat content of your food, but you did not have fat 
content listed on a product that you consumed. Or if you had a problem 
with too much sugar, and you could not have any labeling of what the 
sugar content was. Americans know how important these issues are with 
their diet. Today, the issues have changed with technology. Genetically 
engineered food poses new risks that have not yet been adequately 
researched, and the FDA has a responsibility to tell this to the 
American people. The least we can do is to label genetically engineered 
food. The least we can do is to give people the right to know what is 
in the food they eat. The least we can do is follow the example that is 
set by all of the nations of the European Union in saying that 
genetically engineered foods have to be labeled.
  Why are the people of the United States, who in polls that have been 
taken, have been demonstrated to favor labeling by close to 90 percent, 
being denied this chance to have their food labeled if it is 
genetically modified? Think about it. People have a right to know. That 
is what this bill is about, giving people the opportunity to know what 
is in the food they eat.
  There is one product which has been talked about, a flavor saver 
tomato which takes a gene from a flounder and shoots it into a tomato 
to make the tomato more weather resistant. Now, in God's green acres, 
tomatoes and flounders do not mate. Nature has certain separations 
which makes it possible for species to grow without trying to have 
transspecies communication. What is happening is that genetic 
engineering is creating new possibilities which defy the laws of nature 
and God.
  And so we need to take a stand and to say we ought to be testing this 
food, we ought to test it for toxicity, we ought to test it for 
allergenicity, we ought to test it for all kinds of safety problems, 
but before we get to that we certainly must label it.
  That is why I brought this bill to the Congress. I am not going to 
ask for a vote on it today, but this issue is going to be brought back 
over and over until we have a labeling bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New Mexico insist on his point 
of order?
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I continue my reservation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio which would mandate 
labeling of foods derived from biotechnology. The amendment which 
purports to strengthen consumer choice is not only out of order but 
actually limits consumer choice. I say that based on a couple of 
realities. One, that the labeling in Europe has resulted in stores 
taking these foods off the shelf and off the counter because of the 
potential fear that something must be wrong with these foods if they do 
label. It establishes an unnecessary warning, I think of little 
relevance to the public, about food products that three U.S. regulatory 
agencies, dozens of scientific societies, and literally thousands of 
researchers have found just as safe and maybe safer than essentially 
all the food we eat.
  Except for a couple of fish products, everything in that grocery 
store has been genetically modified, genetically modified by 
crossbreeding, hybrid breeding. Sometimes that kind of breeding has 
resulted in greater danger to the public than a more sophisticated 
high-tech ability to separate out one or two genes, knowing the 
characteristics

[[Page 13776]]

of those genes, and then transplanting those genes. Rather than the 
average agricultural plant that has up to 25,000 genes, when you 
crossbreed them, you do not know what genes are going to dominate, you 
do not know what kind of genes are going to be mutated. So the new 
technology in the minds of many scientists is much safer.
  I think it is important that we do not inhibit the sale and 
production of these foods. We already have 1,000 products genetically 
modified, approved, that are on the market. We have three regulatory 
agencies overseeing it.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Ohio, which would mandate labeling of foods derived 
from biotechnology. The amendment, which purports to strengthen 
consumer choice, not only is out of order but in reality it limits 
consumer choice. It is an attack on food products produced with the new 
technology. It establishes an unnecessary warning of little relevance 
to the public about food products that three U.S. regulatory agencies, 
dozens of scientific societies, and literally thousands of researchers 
have found just as safe--and maybe safer--than essentially all foods we 
eat. Most everything in the grocery store has been produced using gene 
transfer by traditional crossbreeding methods. It is therefore crucial 
that we not reduce efforts in our regulatory agencies to assure that 
all foods are safe which is compromised when we pay special attention 
to a particular category of food.
  On April 13, 2000, I issued a Chairman's report on plant genomics and 
agricultural biotechnology. This report was the culmination of three 
hearings I held on the issue as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Basic 
Research, at which some of the Nation's leading scientists testified. 
One of the issues I dealt with in some detail in the report was 
mandatory labeling.
  What I found is that there is no scientific justification for 
labeling foods based on the method by which they are produced. Labeling 
of agricultural biotechnology products would confuse, not inform, 
consumers and send a misleading message on safety.
  The Food and Drug Administration has more than 15 years of experience 
in evaluating the food-based products of biotechnology and more than 20 
years of experience with medical products of biotechnology. FDA's 
decision not to require labeling is consistent both with the law and 
with its ``Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant 
Varieties.'' More to the point, consumers have a lifetime of direct 
personal experience with foods genetically modified through 
hybridization and other means that are indistinguishable from those 
produced using biotechnology.
  FDA bases labeling decisions on whether there are material 
differences between the new plant-based food and its traditional 
counterpart. These material differences include changes in the new 
plant that are significant enough that the common or usual name of the 
plant no longer applies, or if a safety or usage issue exists that 
warrants consumer notification.
  Despite this sensible policy, biotechnology's critics continue to 
argue that foods created using recombinant DNA techniques should bear a 
label revealing that fact. This view is based on large part on the 
faulty supposition that the potential for unintended and undetected 
differences between these foods and those produced through conventional 
means is cause for a label based solely on the method of production of 
the plant.
  The risks for potentially unintended effects of agricultural 
biotechnology on the safety of new plant-based foods are conceptually 
no different than the risks for those plants derived from conventional 
breeding. As described in FDA's Statement of Policy, ``The agency is 
not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new 
methods differ from other food in any meaningful or uniform way, or 
that, as a class, foods developed by the new techniques present any 
different or greater safety concern than foods developed by traditional 
plant breeding.'' This view was echoed by the research scientists who 
testified before the Subcommittee on the subject.
  Indeed, there is a genuine fear that labeling biotech foods based on 
their method of production would be the equivalent of a ``skull and 
crossbones''--that the very presence of a label would indicate to the 
average consumer that safety risks exist, when the scientific evidence 
shows that they do not. Labeling advocates who argue otherwise are 
being disingenuous. The United Kingdom's new mandatory labeling law, 
for example, was put forward ostensibly to enhance consumer choice. 
Instead, it has prompted British food producers and retailers to remove 
all recombinant DNA constituents from the products they sell to avoid 
labeling.
  Mr. Chairman, mandatory labels indicating the method of genetic 
manipulation clearly would be extremely confusing, and of little 
relevance, to consumers. FDA's current policy on labeling is 
scientifically and legally sound and should be maintained. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. I continue to reserve my point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I wanted to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for his 
leadership and moving the Congress to assure that consumers have 
quality foods and they do not have to worry about reactions, allergic 
reactions or dietary reactions to what are in foods. Even though at 
this point the gentleman has chosen to withdraw this amendment, his 
leadership has encouraged the subcommittee to include in the report 
directive language to get the U.S. Department of Agriculture to work 
more closely with the Food and Drug Administration to make sure that 
decisions are based on sound, verifiable science.

                              {time}  1415

  We expect the Department to provide sufficient information to 
consumers about bioengineered foods, and we have included language 
explaining that we want the Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture to work across agency lines to provide a 
unified approach to this type of consumer safety and consumer 
information.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for his active leadership 
on this issue.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman and the 
gentleman; and we will be back with this another time.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I have several amendments at the desk. I 
would like to proceed at this time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman's amendments are not in order under the 
order of the House.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Waters), for whom I have the highest respect, who has been such a 
leader on civil rights matters, certainly those before the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, to discuss the first of several amendments 
the gentlewoman wishes offer.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, the first amendment is a $1 million set-
aside from the Commodity Credit Corporation that would pay 20 percent 
monthly interest rates to those farmers whose claims are in arrears for 
more than 60 days.
  Let me say what has prompted this. Many Members, from both sides of 
the aisle, have worked very, very hard to correct some of the 
injustices perpetrated by the Department of Agriculture years past. A 
lot of good work went into waiving the statute of limitations so that 
claims could be refiled and that we could have an administrative 
process by which to take care of those farmers who had been denied 
years past.
  In addition to that, many Members from both sides of the aisle 
supported the class action lawsuit. The class action lawsuit was 
successful, and there was a consent decree, and there was a whole 
process put in place, with a monitor, with facilitators and with 
adjudicators to process these claims.
  Well, many of the farmers who have filed claims in good faith are now 
waiting for months to try and get those claims adjudicated, and it is 
quite unfortunate that those people who have the responsibility for 
processing these claims either have not been able to get their act 
together so that they could process them in a timely manner, or they 
are just negligent in what they are supposed to be doing.
  One of the things I discovered some time ago is when you are dealing 
with

[[Page 13777]]

small business people, such as these small farmers, you can literally 
drive them out of business by not processing their claims where they 
have expectations to be reimbursed for the past discrimination that 
they have experienced, whether it is in the agricultural community or 
just in the small business community. If you then assess those who have 
the responsibility and force them to have to pay interest rates to 
facilitate these claims, we find we get things done a lot faster.
  If in fact we have farmers out there who are filing claims and if 
those claims cannot be processed in 60 days, this amendment would 
simply say you have to pay them interest rates and get it done. This 
will move up the process. This will take care of the small family 
farmers, the small business persons, who are sitting there waiting 
month in and month out to have these claims adjudicated.
  I would ask for support on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. May I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining, 
Mr. Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Ohio has 2 minutes remaining.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) to discuss her second 
amendment.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, the second amendment is a $500,000 request 
from the Commodity Credit Corporation to procure additional contractors 
for the Judge Adjudication Mediation Service for the resolution of 
outstanding claims under the Pigford v. Glickman consent decree. I 
might add that there should be a correction in the way ``Pigford'' has 
been spelled in the amendment that we submitted.
  Let me just say that this amendment is consistent with what we are 
trying to do to facilitate these claims. Again, you have these farmers 
who filed these claims in good faith, and we have supported them in 
good faith from both sides of the aisle with the class action lawsuit. 
The judge put together this process by which to get it done.
  We have the appropriate amount of dollars by which to get it done. We 
have the process that has been signed off on. We have so-called 
monitors. We have the facilitators and the adjudicators, but it is not 
getting done. This would satisfy some the complaints that I am hearing, 
that there are not enough people involved in this contractor 
relationship that we have to get the job done.
  So this $500,000 from the Commodity Credit Corporation would simply 
procure additional contractors, speed it up, get it done. The money is 
there in the system by which to do it. This would just supply $500,000 
to get additional contractors to make sure it gets done.
  If we take this action, and we take the action for assessing 20 
percent monthly interest rates for those farmers who have not had their 
claims done, I think we will be able to move this process. Many of the 
farmers who are out there do not know what is going on. They do not 
understand the complications of the system. They do not understand all 
that has been done in the consent decree.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask for support so that we could move this 
process.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the gentlewoman that in traveling the 
country and seeing that at least 70 percent of these civil rights cases 
are in the State of Mississippi, and in following a bit about how the 
cases are being adjudicated, I think the gentlewoman brings a very 
important set of issues to the floor today, and that is the difficulty 
with processing these cases, some of the bureaucratic, not just 
inertia, but, for example, when a case is settled, a claim is settled, 
then, for some reason, even after injury has been found, then that 
family's case is turned over to the FBI. Why? What is going on out 
there?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Waters) on such a critical question that the 
Department should be moving on expeditiously, and there should be 
justice in this system and justice should be swift and sure.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate all of the work the 
gentlewoman has put in, to not only waive the statute of limitations, 
that took tremendous work to get done, but the support that the 
gentlewoman has given with the class action lawsuit, the support that 
the gentlewoman has given to the Members of the Congressional Black 
Caucus and others who have been involved in all of this.
  Additionally, along with the two ideas of trying to get interest when 
there has been a delay and trying to get more money to have more 
contractors, the last amendment that I had would be a transfer of funds 
from the position of Special Assistant to the Secretary for Civil 
Rights to a newly created position of Assistant Secretary of Civil 
Rights.
  Now, this is very simple. What we have actually in the Department of 
Agriculture is a violation of the EEOC law, because what you have is 
you have a position, and in that position they not only are trying to 
supposedly do the work of the Civil Rights Division of the Department 
of Agriculture, they handle personnel for Agriculture and some other 
kinds of things that put them in direct conflict.
  This idea would simply have a position of Assistant Secretary of 
Civil Rights that we would request so that we will have a way by which 
the complaints and the bottlenecks can be addressed at the highest 
levels so that we can get this behind us once and for all.
  I do not know of anybody who is opposed to getting this done. As a 
matter of fact, these farmers are part of the great agricultural 
community of this Nation, who work hard, day in and day out, to supply 
the food stuffs that we need as citizens. These are the farmers that 
continue and persist in an attempt to do farming, no matter how 
difficult it is.
  We have seen many of these farmers who have lost farms and come back 
and start all over again. Many of them have witnessed their ancestors, 
who have died trying to farm the land without money, without money to 
even buy the seed that they need to get planted. Many of them are 
sitting there now, not knowing if they are going to be foreclosed on. 
Many of them were born farmers, and they want to die farmers. They love 
what they do. They love the time and effort that many of their family 
members have put into farming, and I think we deserve to give them some 
support. I think they deserve to have these claims adjudicated. They 
deserve to have them processed in a timely manner.
  As it has been said, they have been found to be eligible, their 
claims have been received, they have been investigated, and they are 
owed the money. Why are they being held up?
  Well, one question has been raised, there are some folks who are 
maybe incompetent. Others are playing games. But I think it defies the 
direction of this House.
  I would simply ask that we receive the kind of support that is 
necessary to process these claims and get it done.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, again I want to thank the gentlewoman for 
her national leadership on this issue, and to say as we move towards 
conference, believe me, I will take these amendments into consideration 
and see if there is not some way that we can get additional momentum 
within the Department. There is absolutely no reason that a farmer 
against whom injury has been found should have to go bankrupt simply 
because the agency has not delivered the assistance in a timely manner 
and the award in a timely manner.
  So I think the gentlewoman has some excellent suggestions here. I am 
sure the farmers who are listening and those who are facing this 
litigation are very grateful for her leadership.
  I was listening to our former colleague, Congressman Kweisi Mufume, 
yesterday at the National Association

[[Page 13778]]

for the Advancement of Colored Persons discuss the agricultural issue, 
and I do not know that I have ever heard that from the President of the 
NAACP before, but it is great to hear. It is a priority for them as 
well.
  We look forward to working for the gentlewoman. I thank her for her 
leadership on behalf of civil rights for farmers, regardless of color 
or region. I would say to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), 
we appreciate her great, great heart and her sense of justice.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman's amendments are directed at a serious 
problem at USDA that has taken far too long to fix. After 5 years of 
the subcommittee's reviews of the civil rights situation, both for USDA 
employees and users of the programs, I am convinced that the problem is 
one of management, not money. We have consistently increased the 
Departmental Administration budget over the past 5 years, and that is 
where the Office of Civil Rights is housed.
  Two years ago, at the administration's request, we put language in 
our bill that increased the scope of the statute of limitations so that 
minority farmers could press their claims, and that cost $15 million. 
This year's supplemental legislation, again at the request of the 
Department of Agriculture, includes $26.2 million for additional 
personnel at Farm Service Agency offices and $13 million specifically 
for expenses related to implement the minority farmers' consent decree 
and the Pigford decision. In addition, we have supplied millions of 
dollars in outreach education and research programs for minority 
farmers.
  Mr. Chairman, what is clear from several reports by the Inspector 
General and by the General Accounting Office, USDA's own civil rights 
action team and the farmers themselves, is that only a commitment at 
the most senior level of the Department will resolve whatever problems 
remain. I do not believe that any kind of legislation can create that 
commitment. It must originate with the Secretary himself.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield 
5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Georgia (Mr. 
Bishop), regarding concern related to the draft that is before us.
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentlewoman for yielding 
me time for the purposes of a colloquy with the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Kingston) regarding an amendment.
  Before I address that, let me commend the gentlewoman from California 
for her effort on behalf of black farmers. I think that the colloquy 
that was held between the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), along with the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the subcommittee chair, is very appropriate, it is 
on target, and it is something we need to move forward on with 
dispatch.

                              {time}  1430

  With that said, I would like to engage the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Kingston) in a colloquy regarding the Committee on Appropriation's 
bill.
  On March 21 of this year, I requested of the Committee on 
Appropriations' Subcommittee on Agriculture that two important projects 
be included in the agriculture appropriations bill for the year 2001. 
The requests under the USDA Agricultural Research Service included an 
ARS project to develop, evaluate, and transfer technology to improve 
the efficiency and quality of peanuts in Dawson, Georgia; and an ARS 
project on peanut quality research to develop technology and 
methodology for peanut quality management during production and 
postharvest processing, which is also in Dawson, Georgia.
  The request was that the two projects be funded at the fiscal year 
2000 levels, including reinstatement of funding for the 15 percent 
rescission. The total appropriation agreed to in subcommittee for the 
two projects and the rescission was $1.15 million.
  During the markup of the full Committee on Appropriations for 
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and 
Related Agencies Appropriation Bill for 2001, it is my understanding 
that the gentleman offered an amendment which would strike the 
provision of $1.15 million for the two projects that I just referred 
to, and the rescission, and would insert in lieu of that, ARS funds 
totaling $1.15 million for several other projects, including $250,000 
for category 1 nematology research, $350,000 for an agricultural water 
use management project, $300,000 for an increase in funds provided for 
the chicken genome mapping project, and $250,000 to increase funds 
provided for research on the Avian Leukosis-J virus and the Avian 
disease and oncology lab.
  Could the gentleman clarify for me the circumstances under which the 
two Dawson peanut projects were dropped, I assume inadvertently, 
pursuant to our conversations from the final committee report; and, if 
the gentleman would engage in some discussion with me with regard to 
the added four additional projects, which are very worthy projects and 
which I support and I join with the gentleman in requesting that they 
be funded. But because I support funding for the two projects that were 
eliminated as well as the projects that were substituted in lieu 
thereof, I would like to ask the gentleman to work with us, since they 
are all important to Georgia producers; they are important to the 
Southeast in agriculture and to agriculture across the country, and 
particularly the quality research at the peanut lab in Dawson.
  Would the gentleman be willing to work with us in conference to make 
sure that we are able to not only restore the two projects that were 
funded, but to ask the conference committee if they would also continue 
the four projects that the gentleman inserted in there, which we think 
are worthy and which were also proposed by us?
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BISHOP. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, if I could respond, what we would like to 
do is continue working with the gentleman on these important projects 
because we know the gentleman's interest in them; and the gentleman is 
correct, there are a number of worthy projects here. The gentleman as 
an advocate of agriculture, the gentleman as an advocate of peanuts, 
the gentleman has worked hard for research, because it does not just 
have impact in Georgia; but it does nationally and not just for farmers 
who are in need of help right now, but for consumers who want to make 
sure that they have an abundant and safe food supply.
  So we will continue working with the gentleman in the conference 
arena. It is also my understanding that the gentleman has secured some 
funding from another body which we will endeavor to match on the House 
side. I will be on the conference committee, and I will work with the 
gentleman on this.
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, these two projects, as 
the gentleman is correct in saying, are included in the report language 
of the Senate Committee on Appropriations Report, report 106-288 at 
page 34.
  We certainly appreciate the gentleman's pledge of cooperation, and we 
would appreciate that very much; and we think it will be in the best 
interests of not just Georgia peanut farmers but the southeastern 
farmers and peanut farmers all across the country and agriculture as a 
whole.
  So I thank the gentleman very much, and I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, Amendment No. 15.
  The CHAIRMAN. Amendment No. 15 was not made in order under the order 
of the House of yesterday.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, we have an amendment that would essentially attempt to 
address the farm crisis affecting so many regions across this country 
by providing $80 million under emergency designation out of funds from 
the Commodity Credit Corporation for equity capital and grants to small 
and medium-sized producers for feasibility

[[Page 13779]]

studies, business development strategies, restructuring small and 
medium-sized enterprises, and the processing and marketing of 
agricultural commodities organized through cooperatives.
  Ever since the passage of the Freedom to Farm Act, billions and 
billions of dollars have been spent by the people of the United States 
in trying to prop up rural America in emergency payments to our 
producers. From the numbers that I have been able to obtain, that 
emergency assistance has amounted to over $24.5 billion, and that is 
with a ``B.'' In order to qualify for those programs, one does not even 
have to have a crop in the ground.
  A recent GAO study that came out indicated that, in fact, in 1999, 
almost a third of the $4.5 billion in payments went to farms that would 
not have received it had we been using a traditional production 
measurement system that had existed prior to Freedom to Farm. So what 
we have is a situation where we have people going bankrupt in rural 
America, we have an AMTA payment, or an Agricultural Market Transition 
Assistance payment, that really does not go to people who desperately 
need it in many, many cases; and we need to find other measures to help 
farmers weather and adjust in this economy.
  The amendment that I am proposing would help farmers meet the market, 
and it is tough. Whether one is a sugar beet producer, whether one is a 
beef producer, whether one is in feed grains, it really does not matter 
what, unless one can economically restructure in this economy, find 
higher value-added products and bring those to market more directly 
with prices being what they are, one cannot afford to have a farm 
business that provides the majority of one's income.
  We know that while farmers want to depend on the market, we have not 
provided the economic tools for them to do that, and there is not any 
farm family in this country that wants to exist on subsidy.
  This amendment would actually spend far fewer dollars than current 
programs, and it would offer the opportunity of establishing co-op 
development ventures that would have permanence, would have a lasting 
impact in many places across this country.
  If we think about it, the amendment that we have drafted establishes 
a cap. No particular enterprise could get more than $500,000, excuse 
me, I should say $10 million out of the $80 million; and we would be 
looking at ways of helping farmers group together in order to use their 
combined assets to meet the market. It is real dollars that can help 
them not just bounce along in this economy, but perhaps survive long 
term.
  The amendment provides for grants that can be targeted toward 
feasibility studies and business development plans. We know many 
farmers do not know how to organize into a marketing co-op for milk, 
for sugar products, for honey products, whatever it might be. This 
would give them another mechanism.
  I know I was shocked to meet with sugar beet growers from Michigan 
who were just up against it, and not able to make it in the economy; 
and they said, Congresswoman, if we could just figure out how to 
reorganize ourselves as a business unit, we really want to remain in 
business. What amazed me about that conversation, in spite of the 
devastation that they are facing and even bankruptcy in some cases, 
they were struggling to find the means to meet the market. I was so 
impressed with their optimism; and, therefore, I would hope that as we 
move toward conference, that this kind of cooperative development 
mechanism might be able to be embedded into the base bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield any remaining time that I might have to the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell).
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) has 
expired.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the time to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Boswell), who has been such a leader in crafting this bill as well as 
the agriculture authorization bill and the crop insurance measure that 
was before us a few weeks ago, and we thank him for his leadership on 
behalf of rural America in every aspect.
  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur) for yielding me the time.
  To the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), if I could just take a 
personal moment, a mutual friend of ours down there in New Mexico said 
it right, I say to the gentleman. He said, you are a good man. I have 
watched the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for the last 4 years, and they have their hearts 
in what they are doing, and I appreciate it.
  I would like to associate myself with the remarks that have been made 
by the gentlewoman from Ohio. I think that we do, in fact, have an 
emergency; and I understand that this amendment is not going to be 
dealt with today, because it would fall in that category. So I 
understand that. I know that the Chairman will carry forth in that rule 
and so on.
  But I do think we have an emergency. We could make a case for it. The 
reason I say that is because in my area and the chairman's area and the 
gentlewoman from Ohio's area and all of those across rural America, we 
see the family farm, which is hard to define, but we see it going by 
the wayside. Bigger and bigger, much more corporate farming going on, 
and so on. So we do have an emergency, I believe. Here are some of the 
reasons I feel that way.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a safe, plentiful, affordable food supply 
compared cost-wise to any other modern country in the world, as the 
percentage of disposable income is so much less. We are privileged to 
have that. I see that in danger of escaping from us. We should think of 
it. How many of us here, myself included, pick up the newspaper and we 
turn over to the stock market and we see what is going on. We are 
concerned and we ought to be, and we want to see whatever we have 
invested in to have some profitability; and if it does not, we are 
concerned. If it goes through a quarter and it is down, why, we want 
something done about it; and that is just the way it is. There is 
nothing wrong with profitability; it is good, the way it should be. But 
when the prices are down, the CEOs are under a lot of pressure, and we 
see things change.
  When it comes to food and fiber, I think that is a different 
category. What we feed this Nation and around the world with is 
something different. Every one of us in this country, all of us, should 
be very much tuned into this because the amount of one's disposable 
income that one will pay for one's safe, plentiful food is going to 
change if we do not get a grip on this. It is just simply going to 
happen.
  So this idea that the gentlewoman brings forth, I think, needs 
consideration. The only tool that I see out there right now that is 
effectively working, and I have been in part of that system for a long 
time; I chaired a board for a long time, I am an active member in my 
local district and I live on the farm, is to allow those communities to 
have those co-ops and to have the opportunity to purchase, and the 
advantage of their shareholders and also to market and to be part of 
the value added to the system, to be part of the value added; and we 
are not doing that now.
  So I applaud the gentlewoman for her efforts to try to create some 
resources to do that. We have seen a little of that done in some 
isolated places, and it works. For the producer to have a part of the 
action for the value added, it just makes sense.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOSWELL. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, coming from Iowa, I am sure that the 
gentleman has noted the greater and greater concentration in the 
agriculture industry, and it is much harder for producers to be 
company-equal partners in any kind of negotiation related to farm 
product and to actually bring that product to market. So I wanted to 
emphasize what the gentleman has been saying about how

[[Page 13780]]

farms have had to get bigger and bigger and bigger, and even to try to 
meet market of today, it is almost impossible for many of these 
producers to do that.
  So I was interested in the gentleman's co-op experience and why that 
is relevant as we try to finance.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. BOSWELL. When they can co-operate together they still have the 
ownership of it, and it is going right back to that family farm. 
Whatever is gained there is a good thing for not only them but for the 
community, for the State, for the country.
  I think we have to look for opportunities to enhance that. That is 
what the gentlewoman is trying to do. I would ask the chairman if he 
would help, and if we get a chance to do things for these people, that 
we pull together to do it. I have confidence that the gentleman will.
  I am delighted that I can come here this afternoon and participate in 
this dialogue. We are doing the right thing. Everybody is interested to 
have safe, plentiful, and affordable food. We ought to do everything we 
can to be sure that happens. I say our chances are much better if we 
have it spread over the land, over a number of family farms, rather 
than in the collective hands of a few.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, as we draw to the conclusion of this bill, I just want 
to remind Members of the shortcomings which will still lead people like 
me to vote against it on final passage, even though I fully recognize 
that the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) has done everything he 
could within the totally inadequate allocation provided to him to 
produce a bill that would be worthy of the House's support.
  I would point out that in a letter from the Executive Office of the 
President it is made clear that ``Given the severe underfunding of 
critical programs and highly objectionable language provisions in the 
bill, the President's senior advisers would recommend that he veto the 
bill if it were presented to him in its current form.''
  I think it is useful to underline what a few of those reasons are. 
First of all, with respect to food safety, this bill underfunds the 
budget request for USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service, which 
inspects meat and poultry, by over $14 million.
  This bill severely underfunds Department efforts to deal with market 
concentration and abusive practices within the industry. It falls some 
$53 million short of the budget request in dealing with problems such 
as citrus canker in Florida, the Asian longhorn beetle infestation that 
is killing hardwood trees in New York and Illinois, the plum pox 
outbreak in Pennsylvania, bovine TB in Michigan, Pierce's disease in 
California's grape industry, Mediterranean fruitflies, and similar 
problems.
  Those may seem like small problems if one does not farm. If one 
farms, they are huge obstructions to making a living. This bill does 
not sufficiently respond to those problems.
  In the area of conservation programs, it falls $70 million short of 
the budget request for conservation operations at the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service, and we are told that will require the elimination 
of about 260 staff who help farmers and ranchers design and implement 
measures to reduce soil erosion, protect water supplies, and the like.
  It also is $180 million below the administration's request for rural 
development. It is short on P.L. 480, overseas food donation programs. 
The agricultural research and extension program would be $63 million 
below the request.
  The bill contains the dangerous rider which restricts FDA and USDA 
actions to reduce Salmonella contamination in eggs.
  Most importantly, in my view, there is a huge hole in this bill 
because it contains nothing to deal with the problem of collapsing 
prices on the farm, and whether we are talking about dairy, where I 
come from, or other commodities, the fact is that farmers are in dire 
straits because of the collapse of market prices.
  The collapse of market prices in my view has been brought on by the 
ill-advised Freedom to Farm Act, which creates a very weird situation.
  I know of no other field, no other economic field in this country in 
which, if we had an oversupply of product, we would not cut back on 
production in order to bring ourselves into some equilibrium between 
supply and demand. Only in agriculture do farmers face the practical 
reality that if they individually want to try to beat the problem, they 
have to increase rather than decrease production.
  That produces a national farm policy which makes no sense. In the 
process it drives down the price paid to individual farms and farmers.
  For all of those reasons, while I respect greatly the gentleman from 
New Mexico and I believe that he has done the best job he can given the 
allocation made available to him, that allocation is woefully 
inadequate. It does not meet the needs of the next 5 years in 
agriculture, and until it comes back from conference with what I would 
hope would be some rational compromises on some of these items, I 
personally will not be in a position to support the bill.
  I regret that, but I think that this bill has a long way to go before 
it is going to receive a presidential signature.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 538, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed 
in the following order: amendment No. 39 offered by the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio); amendment No. 48 offered by the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Sanford); amendment No. 68 offered by the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Burton).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                Amendment No. 39 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate 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.

                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 15-minute vote, followed by two 5-minute 
votes.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 190, 
noes 228, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 382]

                               AYES--190

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood

[[Page 13781]]


     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hill (IN)
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Northup
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Phelps
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Smith (NJ)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Velazquez
     Wamp
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--228

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Chambliss
     Clayton
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fowler
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Mink
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pastor
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Becerra
     Callahan
     Campbell
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Davis (FL)
     Forbes
     McCollum
     McIntosh
     McNulty
     Mollohan
     Owens
     Payne
     Scarborough
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Vento

                              {time}  1511

  Messrs. HUNTER, VITTER, STUPAK, DeMINT, OBERSTAR, ROGAN, RYUN of 
Kansas, and Ms. SANCHEZ changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. TIERNEY, Mr. HEFLEY and Ms. CARSON changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                      Announcement By The Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 538, the Chair announces 
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within 
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each amendment on 
which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.


                Amendment No. 48 Offered by Mr. Sanford

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on Amendment No. 48 offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Sanford) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 166, 
noes 255, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 383]

                               AYES--166

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Archer
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehner
     Bono
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Camp
     Capps
     Capuano
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Conyers
     Cox
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Eshoo
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Inslee
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaTourette
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Northup
     Olver
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pease
     Petri
     Pitts
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Smith (NJ)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Wamp
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Wolf
     Wu

                               NOES--255

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick
     Kingston
     Kleczka

[[Page 13782]]


     Klink
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (NY)
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Napolitano
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Becerra
     Campbell
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Forbes
     McCollum
     McIntosh
     McNulty
     Owens
     Payne
     Scarborough
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Vento

                              {time}  1518

  Mr. SIMPSON changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no''.
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


           Amendment No. 68 Offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 168, 
noes 253, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 384]

                               AYES--168

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Blunt
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Camp
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Coburn
     Collins
     Cook
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Evans
     Everett
     Filner
     Foley
     Fowler
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Lazio
     Leach
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Manzullo
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKinney
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--253

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Canady
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fletcher
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Minge
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Becerra
     Campbell
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Forbes
     Herger
     McCollum
     McIntosh
     McNulty
     Owens
     Scarborough
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Vento

                              {time}  1526

  Messrs. SAXTON, DeLAY and ROYCE and Mrs. NORTHUP changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye''.
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to come before the 
Committee?
  If not, the Clerk will read the final three lines of the bill.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001''.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with 
the comments expressed today by my colleague from Minnesota, Mr. Minge, 
regarding the Farm Planning and Analysis System presented in use by the 
Minnesota Farm Service Agency. This software has served as an extremely 
valuable financial management tool for thousands of Minnesota farmers 
and saved thousands of man hours for our FSA employees in Minnesota. 
While I appreciate the Department of Agriculture's move toward a common 
computing environment, I strongly encourage the Committee to consider 
the superior capabilities of FINPACK and help ensure an appropriate 
resolution that allows our producers to continue using this popular 
tool.

[[Page 13783]]


  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a few important comments 
about the inequities of continuing to exclude the U.S. mink industry 
from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Market Access 
Program (MAP). This is an important issue for the mink industry and its 
many small ranchers and allied industries that reside in some 28 U.S. 
states where mink is produced.
  Since 1996, U.S. mink has been unfairly excluded from the MAP 
program. This exclusion is primarily the result of political pressure 
brought to bear by animal rights groups. The exclusion has nothing 
whatsoever to do with the mink industry's eligibility for the program 
or the success of the mink industry's MAP program prior to 1996. 
Importantly, the mink industry's prior export promotion program was 
considered a model program by USDA. The industry's MAP activities, 
which were used to promote the superior quality of U.S. rancher-raised 
mink in Europe and Asia, successfully increased U.S. mink exports by 
25% between 1992 and 1995. In the last year of participation, exports 
of U.S. mink skins exceeded $100 million.
  Today, almost all sectors of American agriculture, except mink, 
participate in the MAP program. The mink industry is no different from 
the beef, pork, chicken and sheep industries in the United States, all 
of which receive substantial MAP funding. Moreover, most U.S. mink 
ranchers are small, second- and third-generation family-owned 
operations. The mink auction houses are cooperatives and small 
businesses, all eligible for the MAP program.
  This is a U.S. industry that sells nearly 95% of its annual 
production abroad. All foreign producers, particularly those in Europe, 
are heavily subsidized. MAP money is needed for U.S. mink ranchers to 
effectively promote the superior quality of U.S. ranch-raised mink and 
compete successfully against this heavily subsidized foreign 
production. Thus, the exclusion only ensures that our foreign 
competitors dominate the global mink market.
  I am deeply disappointed that it was not possible to restore MAP 
funding for mink through the 2001 Agriculture Appropriations bill. This 
inequity, however, can and should be corrected. Accordingly, I strongly 
urge Mr. Combest and other members of the Agriculture Committee to 
exert their best efforts to restore MAP funding in the next possible 
authorizing vehicle that comes before the Agriculture Committee.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Fiscal Year 
2001 Agriculture Appropriations bill (H.R. 4461). This bill provides 
$75.4 billion for agriculture programs. While this is a significant 
amount of funding, it is $524 million or 1 percent less than this 
year's budget and it is $1.9 billion less than the amount requested by 
the Administration. Farmers and ranchers in Texas and throughout our 
Nation are facing financial hardships because of the low cost of 
commodities. This legislation will help many of these family farmers to 
keep their land and to provide supplemental payments for their farm 
products.
  Eighty percent of this bill is dedicated to mandatory spending 
programs such as food stamps and the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) 
Program. I strongly support these programs and believe that many 
children and low-income families benefit from these programs. For many 
working families, these nutritional programs are vitally necessary to 
ensure that they have sufficient food to eat and each day.
  I am particularly supportive of the human nutrition research programs 
though the Agriculture Research Service of the United States Department 
of Agriculture. I am disappointed that the House Appropriations 
Committee provided level funding for the six human nutrition centers 
nationwide, including the Children's Nutrition Research Center (CNRC) 
at Baylor College of Medicine in cooperation with Texas Children's 
Hospital, located in Houston, Texas. I am committed to working with the 
House Appropriations Committee to provide additional funding for the 
CNRC as this bill moves forward. The CNRC is dedicated to defining the 
nutrient needs of healthy children from conception through adolescence, 
and pregnancy and nursing women.
  Since its inception in November 1978, the CNRC has focused on 
critical questions relating to women and nutrition. These include 
determining how the diet of a pregnant woman affects her health and the 
health of her child and how a mother's nutrition affects lactation and 
the nutrient contents of her milk. The center also has researched the 
relationship between nutrition and the physical and mental development 
of children. In addition, CNRC has conducted amazing research which has 
identified the genes contributing to nutrient intakes and determined 
the factors that regulate these genes. This research will lead to 
valuable discoveries in the field of genetics.
  I would like to highlight two recent discoveries made at the CNRC 
that will help children live healthier, longer lives. The CNRC has 
helped to develop a software dietary assessment program that enables 
children to record what they eat. By recording their intake, children 
are able to interact with a multi-media game which encourages them to 
increase their fruit, juice, and vegetables among fourth grade 
children.
  Another important study provided a reference data for energy 
(calorie) requirement for infants from birth to two years of age. These 
data will form the basis of new infant caloric intake recommendations 
currently under review by the Food and Nutrition Board of the National 
Academy of Science. With proper nutrition, children will live healthier 
lives and be receptive to learning.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill and all of its agricultural 
programs.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hinchey-Walsh 
language included in H.R. 4461, the FY 2001 Department of Agriculture 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill. This emergency language is 
vital for the apple growers in central Massachusetts and throughout New 
England, and I thank both Mr. Hinchey and Chairman Walsh for their 
leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, the apple growers in my district were hurt by Hurricane 
Floyd and by adverse weather conditions in 1999. The weather caused 
what are usually sweet and delicious apples to become mealy and 
unsuitable for normal eating. Instead of selling their products to 
stores and markets for sale to the public, my growers were forced to 
sell these lower quality apples to juicers. The problem, financially, 
is that apples sold to make juice are sold at a price considerably 
lower than apples sold for consumption. As a result, these growers 
suffered significant financial loss and hardship from Hurricane Floyd.
  This language is important because it will provide necessary 
emergency relief for these growers. The $15 million in quality loss is 
important for the growers in New England. It responds to what was a 
true emergency--a hurricane that caused the loss of what is normally a 
profitable crop. The $100 million for market loss is also vital for my 
growers. Together, this emergency funding will provide the needed 
relief for growers in New England who suffered through an extreme 
weather situation that could have caused many growers to go out of 
business.
  Mr. Chairman, I received many calls from the apple growers in my 
district asking for help because of Hurricane Floyd. I want to thank 
all the apple growers in Worcester County who first brought this tragic 
issue to my attention. In particular, I want to thank Mo Tougus of the 
Tougus Family Farm in Northboro, Massachusetts; Sterling, Massachusetts 
apple growers Robert Smiley and Anthony Melone; Ed O'Neil of JP 
Sullivan and Company in Ayer, Massachusetts; and Ken Nicewicz from 
Bolton, Massachusetts. I am pleased to be able to tell them that, 
finally, help is on the way.
  Mr. Chairman, this effort might have been lost if not for the 
diligent work of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Secretary Dan 
Glickman and Undersecretary Gus Schumacher deserve credit for 
recognizing the need of these apple growers. As the former 
Massachusetts State Commissioner of Agriculture, Undersecretary 
Schumacher is a valuable resource and he deserves special recognition 
for his work on behalf of apple growers. Locally, Charlie Costa, Kip 
Graham and Paul Fischer of the Farm Service Agency in Massachusetts 
were essential in the efforts to educate people in Congress about the 
need of the apple growers in Massachusetts and across the country. 
Their work locally was significant and helpful. Without the support and 
technical assistance from these people, our apple growers may not have 
received the emergency relief they so desperately need.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I fully support H.R. 4461, because it 
provides funding for programs that will help assure the vitality of 
agriculture in Georgia. This bill allocates funding for essential 
programs, which allow further development and progress in food 
production. In addition, H.R. 4461 provides financial support for 
agricultural research that is crucial for finding solutions that will 
allow and promote more cost-effective production methods and higher 
quality results.
  By allocating funding for research, this bill will help resolve 
problems inhibiting productivity and development. More specifically, 
research in pest and disease control, such as nematode and tomato 
spotted wilt disease research, will enhance strategies used to combat 
crop yield losses. Funding is also included for the development of more 
efficient agricultural water usage that is critical to locations in 
south Georgia where agricultural water usage comprises 50% of all water 
consumed. Furthermore, the bill includes funding for the National 
Center for Peanut Competitiveness for

[[Page 13784]]

research directed toward guaranteeing competitiveness for U.S. peanuts 
in the world market. Funding for poultry disease research is also 
important to explore diseases that limit and inhibit poultry 
production.
  Support for these research efforts, coupled with funding for 
promotional and marketing efforts, will help enable farmers to practice 
more efficient methods and minimize the devastating losses with which 
they have become all too familiar. I urge my colleagues to vote for 
this bill and support America's farmers.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, for the past 23 years, Minnesota Farm 
Service Agency borrowers have had access to a farm planning and 
analysis system known as FINPACK. The software is a comprehensive 
system that is of great benefit to producers, their lenders, and to the 
Farm Service Agency that administers their loans. FINPACK, initially 
developed by the University of Minnesota in 1972, became a Farmers Home 
Administration (FmHA) initiated pilot project that began in six 
Minnesota FmHA offices in 1977. Due to its effectiveness, additional 
Minnesota FmHA offices began to use the system. Today FINPACK provides 
monthly cash flows, enterprise analyses, budgeting and balance sheets 
to nearly 10,000-15,000 producers in Minnesota.
  By their nature, FSA borrowers are borrowers at risk. As the ``lender 
of last resort'' and provider of ``supervised credit,'' FSA has a 
mandate to help producers improve their management capacity and 
ultimately their financial viability. Not only has FINPACK provided an 
efficient system to help Minnesota producers in their strategic 
planning, it has allowed a system of cooperation among educators, 
extension agents, consultants, farm advocates, and bankers. As 
producers develop their farm plan, they are able to provide the 
computer file that contains all of the information to those who assist 
them in their farm planning. Editing changes may be made immediately 
and without return visits.
  However, as valuable as FINPACK is to producers and their advisors, 
it is equally valuable to Minnesota's FSA office employees. Minnesota 
FSA estimates that FINPACK saves them $40,000 to $180,000 annually in 
reduced contractor fees due to cooperation with educators and lenders. 
With FSA's current staff resource shortages, the interagency and public 
and private cooperative is invaluable to FSA county staff. The 
Minnesota FSA field staff has unanimously asked for the ability to 
continue to use FINPACK.
  Unfortunately, the USDA recently announced that FSA must use the Farm 
and Home Plan (FHP) and will not allow Minnesota FSA offices to use 
FINPACK as part of USDA's attempt to comply with the ``Common Computing 
Environment'' mandated by Congress. This issue has received national 
attention. The National Association of Credit Supervisors, the FSA 
employee organization for credit specialists, has passed a resolution 
supporting continued use of FINPACK. While FINPACK is used by FSA only 
in Minnesota, it is used by Risk Management Education programs in more 
than 40 states.
  The Farm and Home Plan (FHP) is used by FSA for credit applications. 
The FHP meets minimum requirements for credit applications, but does 
not provide the documentation required by FSA for Interest Assistance 
applications. FSA requires a monthly cash flow plan for Interest 
Assistance, but FHP does not have this capability. The FHP provides a 
simple cash analysis not an accrual analysis as required by FSA for 
Borrower Training. Furthermore, the FHP makes no attempt to comply with 
ABA Farm Financial Standards.
  FSA has represented that they have developed a generic interface, 
allowing for usage of FINPACK by producers to be coordinated with FSA's 
use of FHP. Essentially, FSA's FHP software stores data in a Microsoft 
Access database. This means that any software program can export data 
in Access format and it can be loaded into the Access database. However 
FSA has not addressed how lenders, educators and producers can transfer 
producer ID's so that the FHP knows where to store the data. Technology 
appears to be a challenge for FSA. Currently FSA has two versions of 
FHP software--one that runs on PCs and one that runs on their mainframe 
System 36 machine. These two versions of the FHP are not interfaced and 
cannot transfer data. This problem illustrates FSA's inability to deal 
with this technology.
  However, Farm Service Agency has refused to allow the continued use 
of FINPACK based on the Common Computing Environment mandated by 
Congress. While the need to streamline and have uniform systems is 
important, it is not logical to insist that a superior system be 
abandoned. FSA has determined that as of September 30, 2000 FINPACK is 
not to be used any longer in FSA offices in Minnesota.
  Over the six months, it has been difficult and frustrating to deal 
with the USDA on this issue. While I am generally hesitant to introduce 
legislation to address this administrative decision, I urge the 
committee to work with the Minnesota delegation to develop a positive 
resolution that allows producers to continue to use this valuable 
financial tool.

                              {time}  1530

  The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further amendments, under the rule, the 
Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) 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, pursuant to House 
Resolution 538, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry 
amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 339, 
nays 82, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 385]

                               YEAS--339

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Archer
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pease

[[Page 13785]]


     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--82

     Andrews
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Berkley
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Capuano
     Carson
     Clay
     Coburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crane
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Deutsch
     Doggett
     Eshoo
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gephardt
     Gutierrez
     Hefley
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lantos
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McInnis
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Moran (VA)
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Rivers
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Shays
     Stark
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weygand
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Becerra
     Campbell
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Forbes
     McCollum
     McIntosh
     McNulty
     Norwood
     Owens
     Rahall
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Vento

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. KLECZKA changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. ARCHER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my position in support of final 
passage of the vote that just occurred be expressed in the Record. I 
was unavoidably detained in my office meeting with the CEO of U.S. 
Airways and missed the vote.

                          ____________________