[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12231-12260]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). Pursuant to House Resolution 
183 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 2330.

                              {time}  1402


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2230) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, 
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Goodlatte in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla).
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we are delighted today to be presenting the 
Agricultural Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002. I want to 
acknowledge the good work of the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), my 
ranking member, who has contributed to this process over the last few 
weeks.
  It has been a pleasure working with her and all the members of the 
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration and Related Agencies on both sides of the aisle.
  I believe we have produced a good bipartisan bill that deals with a 
lot of the specific issues that Members are concerned about in their 
districts around the country, ranging from research projects to 
inspection issues, to FDA issues, to just any possible issue that has 
come up. There have been 2500-plus requests from individual Members, 
and we have done our best to accommodate that.
  Mr. Chairman, I am just delighted that we have seen good, strong 
bipartisan support for the effort we have undertaken in putting this 
bill together.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring before the House today the fiscal 
year 2002 appropriations bill for Agriculture, Rural Development, the 
Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies.
  My goal this year has been to produce a bipartisan bill, and I 
believe we have done a good job in reaching that goal.
  The subcommittee began work on this bill in early March, before the 
administration produced its budget. We had 6 public hearings beginning 
on March 8. The transcripts of these hearings, the administration's 
official statements, the detailed budget requests, several thousand 
questions for the record and the statements of members and the public 
are all contained in six hearing volumes.
  In order to expedite action on this bill, we completed our 
subcommittee's hearings on May 6.
  The subcommittee and full committee marked up the bill on June 6 and 
June 13 respectively.
  We have tried very hard to accommodate the requests of Members, and 
to provide increases for critical programs. We received 2,532 
individual requests for specific spending, from almost every Member of 
the House. Reading all of the mail I received, I can confirm to you 
that the interest in this bill is completely bipartisan.
  This bill does have significant increases over fiscal year 2001 for 
programs that have always enjoyed strong bipartisan support. Those 
increases include:
  Agricultural Research Service, $79 million;
  Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, $55 million;
  Food Safety and Inspection Service, $25 million;
  Farm Service Agency, $201 million;
  Natural Resources Conservation Service, $77 million; and
  Food and Drug Administration, $120 million.
  I would like to say that I am very happy that we were able to provide 
significant increases for the Food and Drug Administration. I think it 
is vitally important for that agency to have the resources to perform 
its public health mission. We are able to provide FDA the following 
increases above last year's level:
  $15 million to prevent outbreak of BSE, or Bovine Spongiform 
Encephalopathy, which is commonly known as ``Mad Cow disease'';
  $10 million to increase the number of domestic and foreign 
inspections, and to expand import coverage in all product areas;

[[Page 12232]]

  $10 million to reduce adverse events related to medical products;
  $10 million to better protect volunteers who participate in clinical 
research studies;
  $9 million to provide a safer food supply;
  $23 million to complete construction of the replacement facility in 
Los Angeles that we initiated last year;
  And full funding of increased pay costs for existing employees.
  I want to stress how important this is. In the past, FDA and all 
other agencies in this bill were forced to reduce the level of services 
provided to the public, in order to absorb legislated payroll 
increases. This year, we want to be sure that does not happen. I am 
sure that we all want to see that there is no slippage in research, 
application review, inspections, loan servicing, and all the other 
payroll-intensive operations that are financed through our bill. We 
worked hard to find these resources. I am glad we were able to do it, 
and I am sure the agencies will put them to good use.
  Mr. Chairman, we all refer to this bill as an agriculture bill, but 
it does far more than assisting basic agriculture. It also supports 
human nutrition, the environment, and food, drug, and medical safety. 
This is a bill that will deliver benefits to every one of our 
constituents every day no matter what kind of district they represent.
  I would say to all Members that they can support this bill and tell 
all of their constituents that they voted to improve their lives while 
maintaining fiscal responsibility.
  The bill is a bipartisan product with a lot of hard work and input 
from both sides of the aisle. I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Florida, (Chairman Young), and the gentleman from Wisconsin, (Mr. 
Obey), who serve as the distinguished chairman and ranking member of 
the Committee on Appropriations. I would also like to thank all my 
subcommittee colleagues: the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh); the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston); the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Nethercutt); the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham); the gentlewoman 
from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson); the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode); 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood); the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro); the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).
  In particular, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur), the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, for all 
her good work on this bill this year and the years in the past.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to include at this point in the Record 
tabular material relating to the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following Comparative Statement of Budget 
Authority for the Record:

[[Page 12233]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28JN01.001



[[Page 12234]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28JN01.002



[[Page 12235]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28JN01.003



[[Page 12236]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28JN01.004



[[Page 12237]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28JN01.005



[[Page 12238]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28JN01.006



[[Page 12239]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me rise to say that this is a good bill that, in 
fact, is getting better at every stage of the legislative process.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), chairman of the Subcommittee, 
and our committee staff have worked to draft a fair bill within tight 
budget allocations; but the underlying amounts in different sections of 
the bill are far from what is necessary, given many of the needs of 
rural America and our food assistance programs.
  This is the first bill managed by our new chairman, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Bonilla). Let me congratulate him on his maiden voyage 
as chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 
and Drug Administration and Related Agencies and thank the gentleman 
for his cooperation throughout.
  What we all learn together, hopefully, will put us in a position to 
continue to work towards the best possible bill for America's future.
  I want to thank the subcommittee staff: Hank Moore; Martin Delgado; 
Maureen Holohan; Joanne Orndorff; Jim Richards; Roger Szemraj; and our 
detailee, Leslie Barrack.
  I also want to thank our new minority staff member, Martha Foley, 
very much for her hard work.
  Mr. Chairman, let us put this bill in perspective. To begin with, 
overall we have a spending level for 2002 of $74,360 billion of which 
$15,669 billion is discretionary spending, plus an additional $150 
million for the Hinchey apple disaster provisions.
  Several times today already, each of us have been touched by 
agriculture and other agencies in this bill: the food that we have 
eaten; some of the fabrics we are wearing; perhaps, even the blended 
fuels that were used in the vehicles that brought us to work; or the 
medications or vitamins that we take on any day.
  We have been benefited by the research in this bill, by education and 
training, by inspection services that are operating at red alert levels 
now to keep hoof and mouth disease and mad cow disease out of this 
country, and by marketing services that take the bounty of this land 
around the world.
  Truly, this is the committee that is concerned about food, fiber, the 
fuels of the future, and the condition of our forests.
  Mr. Chairman, nearly 80 percent of the spending in this bill is 
mandatory spending, including our farm price support programs. Only 
one-fifth of the bill, 20 percent, is discretionary. Half of the 
spending in the bill is for food programs which keep America's people 
the best-fed people on Earth.
  The bill, as reported, is about $260 million in discretionary 
spending above the President's request, but a little more than $3 
billion below this year's level due to the absence of natural disaster 
and other emergency farm provisions.
  Earlier, during the discussion on the rule, we discussed several 
improvements that should be included in this bill that amendments could 
make possible, but amendments that were denied in the Committee on 
Rules.
  There was an amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Ms. DeLauro) that would recognize that we need more money for the WIC 
program, the Women, Infants, and Children feeding program, due to the 
fact that participation is running 80,000 people more per month than 
the administration had expected predominantly due to higher 
unemployment levels.
  The amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and others 
makes room for helping small specialty crop producers who are facing 
hard times. He has been successful in dealing with one sector, the 
apple sector, in this bill.
  My own effort adopted by the full committee insists that the 
integrity of producer votes is protected in the pork checkoff program. 
It directs funds be spent only on those programs that the producers 
have approved and this directive has been included in the final bill.
  Mr. Chairman, there are also other elements that we still need to 
work through as we amend here on the floor and then as we move to the 
Senate: one is the Global Food for Education program, which the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and the gentlewoman from 
Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) have championed here in the House; improved 
food safety and increased food inspection need more attention; also new 
biofuels funding, including ethanol, biodiesel, and biomass-related 
fuel production to help move America toward energy independence.
  There are six titles in this bill, and I just want to highlight a 
couple major points in each of those.
  In Title I, Agricultural Programs, we have been able to take the 
first steps to fund relocation of some of our important laboratories in 
Arizona, as well as consolidating and modernizing our key agricultural 
research facilities in Ames, Iowa.
  We are just so happy to be able to make progress there, the most 
important labs in our country that protect the entire livestock 
production in our Nation, as well as maintain the best veterinary 
service that the world knows.
  In the APHIS, Animal Planned Health Inspection Service, we have been 
able to improve by $2 million and increase the buildings account for a 
facility at the Miami International Airport.
  In our conservation programs, the NRCS has scored below the 
administration request by $25 million.
  In rural development in title III, the bill increases these important 
programs by $87 million over the research request, in the important 
account of water and wastewater disposal grants funding is included at 
a level of $75 million over the request.
  There is a million dollars included for rural cooperative development 
grants beyond the request, and $3 million to restore the rural 
telephone loan program that the administration proposed to end.
  In Title IV, Domestic Food Programs, the $18 million in increases 
above the request will help us to expand the TEFAP program, Temporary 
Emergency Food Assistance Program, and the Commodity Supplemental Food 
Program, looking at five new States, Wisconsin, Washington, 
Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Missouri.
  I mentioned the sufficiency of the WIC program level a little bit 
earlier. We have to keep our eye on that particularly as we move 
towards conference with the Senate.
  In title V, we have provided a level of 9 million additional dollars 
in the PL480 title I program above the request level.
  In title VI in the Food and Drug Administration, we have provided 
more than $100 million over the 2001 enacted level. In addition, the 
bill includes a contingent appropriation of $2.9 million for continued 
funding of last year's prescription drug importation provision.
  Finally, I mentioned the pork checkoff and the apple programs as 
being included in the final bill that is coming to the floor.
  Overall, this bill is a good one and is getting better. It should be 
one that truly embraces the needs and the challenges of the 21st 
century.
  I will support it and encourage our colleagues to support it. But I 
also will definitely vote for a number of amendments being offered here 
on the floor today that can make this bill a hallmark of the best 
America can do when we as a Congress have the will to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the Chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations, my friend.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I first want to congratulate the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla). This is the gentleman's first year 
as a chairman of a Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 
and Drug Administration and Related Agencies, and he has done an 
outstanding job.

[[Page 12240]]

  The gentleman came as a seasoned Member. The gentleman took over this 
very important role as chairman of the subcommittee, and he not only 
has produced a good bill, but he produced it in record time.
  Although, he is a new chairman, he was the first one with a markup, 
and I congratulate the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I also congratulate the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur), the ranking minority member, who worked very well in 
partnership to produce a pretty good bipartisan bill.
  As usual, there will be some differences, as we proceed, and proceed 
we will, but I will urge Members to support the bill and be very 
logical and realistic as we approach the issue of amendments.
  Now, on the subject of amendments. We are trying to accommodate 
Members, as I announced yesterday, to assess where we were in the 
afternoon and see if there was some way to get Members out of here at a 
reasonable time this evening.
  It is pretty obvious we cannot complete consideration of this bill 
today, so I see no reason to go on into the late hours of the night or 
the wee hours of the morning.
  However, in order to arrive at a reasonable adjournment time today, 
it is going to be necessary for Members to be willing to limit some 
debate, to agree to some time limits, which the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I are working on this very minute.
  Also, I would like for the Members to know that if Members have an 
amendment that they would like to have considered on this bill, it 
would be a good idea if they would advise the gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Ms. Kaptur) or the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) on that side or 
myself and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) on this side so that 
we can put those potential amendments into the list of the universe of 
amendments that we have to deal with.
  We will be better able to manage this bill if we can do that. I put 
Members on notice that it would be a good idea to do that as soon as 
possible.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to repeat what the 
gentleman just said. For the benefit of all Members on the floor or all 
Members whose staff may be watching in their offices, every Member is 
coming up and telling us they want to get out of here early tonight. It 
is my understanding that the leadership intends to try to make that 
happen. But we need to know which Members intend to offer their 
amendment and which Members do not intend to offer their amendments.
  So I would ask every single Member on our side of the aisle, if they 
are contemplating an amendment or a colloquy, because yesterday we took 
almost 2 hours on colloquies, if they are contemplating any of that, 
they need to let us know immediately, because we need to do two things.
  We need, first of all, to try to establish which amendments are going 
to be offered today and how much time is going to be taken on them. We 
have had the cooperation of five or six Members who have told us that 
they will be happy to settle for 10 minutes a side, for instance. We 
need to fill out the rest of that. We need to know how far we are going 
to get in the bill today. Then if we can reach agreement on that, then 
that enables us to have some idea, perhaps, of what we can package so 
that we know what we are facing when we get back.
  But what I would urge Members not to do to us is to neglect to 
contact us now, then see their point in the bill passed, so their 
amendment is not in order, and then try to redraft their amendment as a 
look-back at the end of the bill. We will not save any time that way.
  If Members have amendments, we need them to be prepared now to bring 
them up today in the regular order on the bill so that we can get out 
of here at a reasonable time.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for those 
comments. We are working hard. Now, if we get the cooperation of the 
membership, we can accomplish quite a bit of consideration on this bill 
today and still get us out of here at a reasonable time, and we will 
talk about that time a little later once we see what the universe of 
amendments will be for today.
  With that, again, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Texas 
(Chairman Bonilla).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. DeLauro), a very hard-working and able member of our 
subcommittee.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas 
(Chairman Bonilla) and to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the 
ranking member of the committee. I thank them for their leadership.
  Given the kind of budget constraints that we have, there was a lot of 
hard work and a good bill that has been produced, though there are a 
few critical issues that remain that we need to continue to work on.
  I also want to say thank you to this subcommittee and the associate 
staff for all of their help.
  The bill addresses many of the urgent needs of American families. Let 
me just take a moment to focus on the crisis in agriculture today. 
America's economy and security relies on the strength of agriculture. 
Yet America's farmers are facing the toughest times since the Great 
Depression.
  Connecticut is a leader in New England's agriculture, in eggs, 
peaches, milk production per cow. The Nation's oldest agriculture 
experiment station is just up the street from my home in New Haven. 
Like other farmers, Connecticut farmers face plunging commodity prices 
and soaring gas prices. Urban sprawl puts it in the top 10 States in 
lost farmland. This spring, record low temperatures eliminated almost 
40 percent of our peach, pear, grape and apple crops.
  I am proud of the funding for programs that reach out and help our 
farmers: rural development, conservation, pest management, commodity 
marketing assistance.
  This bill also funds food safety efforts, but in my view, as I have 
expressed before in the House today, does not go far enough. It needs 
to do more. Americans are more likely to get sick from what they eat 
today than they were a half century ago, and outbreaks of food sickness 
are expected to go up by more than 15 percent over the next decade.
  Each year 5,000 Americans die from food-borne illnesses, 76 million 
get ill, and 325,000 are hospitalized. Just 2 days ago, the Excel 
Corporation recalled 190,000 pounds of ground beef and pork because of 
possible contamination by deadly E. coli.
  The Food and Drug Administration inspects all food except meat, 
poultry and eggs. Yet to cover the 30,000 U.S. companies that make this 
food, the FDA has only 400 inspectors. For the 4.1 million imported 
food items entering the country, the FDA has less than 120 inspectors. 
To address this crisis facing the families, I will offer an amendment 
to increase the funds for inspections and other food safety 
initiatives.
  As we move toward the conference, I also would like to work with the 
chairman to address the funding shortage that threatens WIC. If the 
administration's unemployment predictions come true, this essential 
nutrition program for low-income families, which yields more than $3 in 
savings to the government in reduced spending on programs such as 
Medicaid, will, in fact, not have enough funds to serve all who are 
eligible, all eligible women, infants and children.
  I look forward to working with the gentleman from Texas (Chairman 
Bonilla) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) to address these 
important issues and others as we debate the bill.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to rise in, in a way, 
admiration of the committee for their work

[[Page 12241]]

on this particular piece of legislation, on this bill. It is truly 
commendable in a situation where profligate spending in this body is 
the norm, it is commendable to have a bill coming here that is only 1.5 
percent above last year's spending and only 1.7 percent above the 
President's request.
  There is no particular program in the bill with which I rise to take 
issue. I do wish, however, to just briefly discuss a point of concern 
that I have with the general tenor of our agricultural support 
payments. It is the fact that welfare, whether it is provided for able-
bodied individuals or large corporate farmers, has a corrupting 
influence on both. The welfare farm subsidies keep land prices high, 
makes it harder for small farmers to enter into the market. Farm 
subsidies decrease the incentive for efficiency, which would greatly 
benefit the agricultural sector.
  This is a list, by States, I have a list here from CBO of those 
States that receive a percentage of their net farm income as a result 
of government payments. It is quite astounding. In 1999, the State of 
Illinois had 112 percent of its net farm income a government check; 
Indiana, 93 percent; North Dakota, 93 percent; Iowa, 87 percent; 
Missouri, 78 percent; Montana, 77. At least 12 States have government 
checks representing more than 50 percent of their net farm income. This 
is an unsustainable activity, and I urge the committee to think 
carefully about it in the future.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Hinchey), a member of our subcommittee who single-handedly 
turned this bill on end and was able to get language to deal with 
specialty crop producers across our country, a very, very hard-working 
and distinguished member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur), ranking member, for her leadership on this committee and on 
this issue. I also want to express my appreciation to the chairman of 
the subcommittee. I think that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), 
in his first year as chairman of the subcommittee, has produced a very 
good bill, and it has been a pleasure working with him in this 
endeavor.
  This bill adds $260 million to the President's request for the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture. It increases funding for farm programs, 
conservation, rural development, education and research, nutrition, and 
food safety. When you add in the $5.5 billion in emergency agricultural 
spending that the House passed earlier this week, total funding for 
these programs is substantially increased over last year.
  As with any of these bills, of course, it could be even better. I 
think we should have made in order the amendment of the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) to increase funding for food safety as 
well as the amendment of the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) to fund 
the Global School Lunch Initiative.
  But the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) has written a 
balanced bill that addresses important priorities for rural America.
  The bill also includes $150 million for a market loss assistance 
program for apple growers. I offered this provision in committee with 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Sweeney), and it was adopted by a strong bipartisan vote of 34 to 
24.
  I appreciate everything that the gentleman from Texas (Chairman 
Bonilla), the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the gentleman 
from California (Chairman Dreier) have done to protect this funding.
  I also would like to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Hastings) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) for their 
parts in writing the rule as well.
  The U.S. apple industry is suffering serious financial hardships for 
the fifth straight year as a result of low prices, bad weather, and 
plant diseases. During this time, the total value of U.S. apple 
production fell more than 25 percent, and losses from the 2000 crop 
alone will probably top $500 million. This is a nationwide figure and 
includes losses, not only in New York, but also in Massachusetts, 
Michigan, Washington State, Pennsylvania, and every other place where 
apples are grown as a commodity crop.
  Some of the apple losses can be blamed on foreign competition, the 
Chinese, for example, who were found guilty of dumping apple juice 
concentrate into the United States at prices below production costs. 
Increased tariffs have not significantly improved the price of apple 
juice in the last year.
  Apple producers in New York and the Northeast watched the value of 
their crop decline as a result of severe hail damage. In Michigan, 
growers suffered a crippling epidemic of fire blight that destroyed 
thousands of acres of orchards.
  Compared with the billions of dollars that Congress routinely sends 
to commodity producers, $150 million is a drop in the bucket. This 
payment, however, will mean the difference between life and death for 
many growers across the country.
  Mr. Chairman, apple growers face the same market, regulatory, trade 
and weather conditions that make the double AMTA payments necessary for 
row crop farmers. It is preposterous that our foreign policy 
differentiates so radically between them.
  This is a good bill, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to support it.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Riley).
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk that I 
intend to withdraw, but first I would like to engage the chairman in a 
colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to acknowledge a job well done by the chairman 
and the ranking member. Agricultural programs are often arcane and seem 
to benefit only the agricultural community, but through the chairman's 
leadership, the committee has produced a sound bill that benefits not 
only the agricultural community, but the Nation as a whole.
  It is my understanding that the constraints placed upon the committee 
prevented funding for nearly all new research projects. One such 
unfunded project would have been undertaken by researchers at Auburn 
University, one of the leading agricultural research institutions in 
the country. This project sought to ensure public health through the 
development of improvements in poultry.
  Mr. Chairman, this study, which I strongly support, will continue 
safely and efficiently producing poultry, and in an effort to address 
the environmental, human and animal concerns, I ask for your immediate 
consideration of a $1.3 million human health, poultry-byproduct study 
at Auburn University. This study will determine the risks associated 
with poultry production and the contributions the poultry community can 
make to environmental stewardship and food safety through the 
development of innovative techniques documenting the presence of 
pathogens in the various phases of the production cycle and instituting 
techniques to eliminate them. This study, Mr. Chairman, will safeguard 
public health, the end-use consumer and the environment, all at minimal 
taxpayer expense.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RILEY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, first, I want to acknowledge that the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Riley) has worked very hard on this issue 
that is very important to Auburn University, and I would be pleased to 
work with the gentleman as we go to conference on this issue. It is 
going to be a difficult issue, and the gentleman and I have had 
discussions about that before, but we are going to give it our best 
shot. Again, I know how significant and how important it is to the 
folks in Alabama.
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman 
Bonilla) for his time and his consideration. I look forward to working 
with him.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Boyd), a member of our subcommittee, a rancher, and one of 
the most knowledgeable members of our subcommittee.

[[Page 12242]]


  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for 
yielding me this time. I want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Bonilla), my chairman, and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), my 
ranking member, and their staff for their good work they have done on 
this bill.

                              {time}  1430

  Is it perfect? No, it is not perfect, but few things are. I believe 
this bill is as fair and as balanced a bill as is possible given the 
302(b) allocations that we are working with.
  The committee has produced a bill that is less than the committee 
appropriated last year but slightly more than the President requested 
for discretionary spending. We provide an additional $60 million for 
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, that is APHIS, which is 
responsible for conducting inspections and quarantine activities to 
protect animals and plants from disease and pests. Personally, I 
believe we need to invest even more resources in this area. As we 
continue to enter trade agreements, making our borders more vulnerable 
to pests and diseases, and more and more people are traveling to and 
from our country, we put our farmers in a vulnerable situation.
  Many of my colleagues have heard me talk about Citrus Canker in 
Florida time and again. In 1995, it was reintroduced through the Miami 
Airport and has now spread throughout the urban areas into the 
commercial groves and is threatening a $9 billion industry, a $9 
billion industry, in Florida. We are spending hundreds of millions of 
dollars to fight this disease. If it is not eradicated, it could spread 
to other citrus States like Texas and California. It just makes more 
sense to invest the resources on the front end to make sure we are able 
to stop it at the borders.
  Also, the threat of hoof and mouth disease entering our country is 
very real. We need to make sure APHIS has the resources to keep this 
terrible disease from spreading through our country.
  The bill also provides an additional $75 million for ag research, 
which is of utmost importance to our farmers and consumers and to all 
the Nation.
  More and more we see soil and water conservation linking groups that 
never before could seem to agree on anything. I am pleased that this is 
an area that the committee recognizes as being critical and has 
provided an additional $70 million over last year for a total of $783 
million for conservation operations.
  There is additional funding for rural housing and development, 
programs that are important to all of rural America.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of this bill and 
encourage my colleagues to support the bill also.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire as to our remaining 
time on both sides, please.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) has 13\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) has 21 
minutes remaining.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Could I ask the gentleman if he has any additional 
speakers.
  Mr. BONILLA. Not at this time, but there may be more coming.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), a distinguished member of the authorizing 
committee.
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, this Congress can make historic progress in making 
agricultural programs that enable farm producers to survive in today's 
markets and to continue providing the highest quality commodities at 
the lowest cost to consumers.
  The House has already passed a bill providing immediate farm relief, 
and the Committee on Agriculture has moved aggressively to draft a new 
multiyear farm bill to secure greater long-term stability. Today, we 
are considering a bill for the next fiscal year that provides $260 
million more than the President's budget; more for research, including 
some $7 million more in Georgia; more for crop insurance; more in rural 
electric and communications loans; more for child nutrition and WIC 
programs; and sets aside more than $79 billion over 10 years in new 
emergency aid, including $7.4 billion for next year.
  While I support a higher overall agriculture budget, it is time to 
move the process forward and resolve any differences in House and 
Senate negotiations. Our goal is to save our agricultural system at a 
time of crisis, and today we can take another step in that direction.
  Mr. Chairman, while I am concerned that the bill does not give enough 
help to small and disadvantaged farmers and research and capacity 
grants for the 1890 Land Grant Universities, I support the amendment of 
the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) to do that.
  Today, Mr. Chairman, we can move the process forward to bring more 
help to American agriculture. I urge my colleagues to join in support 
of this bill. It is a good bill, it moves the process forward, takes 
drastic steps in the right direction; and, hopefully, we can do what we 
need to do for America's agriculture.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), for yielding me this time; and I 
rise for the purpose of a brief colloquy.
  As I am sure the chairman is aware, a serious threat has sprung up in 
wheat growing areas making the lives of our already-struggling farmers 
even more difficult. A fungus called Karnal bunt has been found in my 
district as well as in the district of our colleague, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). While Karnal bunt poses no threat to humans 
or animals, it can make wheat kernels and flour ground from them 
unpalatable. At this time, a few counties have been quarantined. It 
appears it has been well contained, but we will have issues of 
compensation and appropriate action before us.
  I have been working with the chairman and ranking member of the full 
committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), as well as the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development and Research, the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), but I would request the distinguished 
gentleman's continued assistance in working with USDA and the 
administration to deal with this issue appropriately and to deal with 
those who have been affected fairly.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THORNBERRY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. STENHOLM. I thank my friend for yielding to me, and I would like 
to say that the situation the gentleman has described is accurate, but 
here are the facts to date:
  Seven producers affected, 10 elevator operators affected, 17 fields 
tested positive, 1.4 million bushels contaminated, and 21 bushels yet 
to be tested. An elevator operator in my district first discovered the 
fungus and bunted kernels in a load of grain delivered to his facility.
  For these and many other reasons, I join my colleagues in working 
with USDA to contain this outbreak and ensuring the critical assistance 
provided to producers, elevator operators, and others in agribusiness 
who have seen their livelihoods put on hold.
  So we look forward to working with my colleague, with the chairman, 
and with USDA, who are on top of this, and APHIS, to make sure that we 
contain it. It is extremely important to our industry.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THORNBERRY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BONILLA. I thank my friend for yielding, and I would be more than 
happy and enthusiastic about helping my friend work on this problem. 
This is not a new problem for wheat producers. Accordingly, we will 
work to do everything possible to get USDA to act

[[Page 12243]]

in a proper way, not only with the problem but to assist producers with 
whatever ramifications may occur.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THORNBERRY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my chairman for 
generously yielding that minute, and I just want to say that I share 
the gentleman's deep concern about what this particular condition can 
do to our export market.
  We had a situation a couple of years ago where we had USDA officials 
up before our committee and we asked where on the continent does Karnal 
bunt exist. I said was it Canada? No, we do not have it in Canada. Is 
it in the United States? No, it is not in the United States. I said, 
how about Mexico? Absolutely. I said, How did it get over the border? 
And this goes back to NAFTA and these inspection issues. They could not 
say whether it came in seed in a car trunk or whether some bird carried 
it over. But, honestly, we have to work together to try to deal with 
the conditions that can come in here from other countries.
  I would just express to the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and 
Related Agencies, to the ranking member on the authorizing committee, 
and to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) that this Member is 
vitally interested in that problem, and he has my full cooperation on 
it.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to say, however, 
that the costs of remediating that should not only be borne by the 
public sector. That is, if we are going to have problems related to 
trade, those participating in trade ought to bear the costs of what 
goes wrong in the transaction. What has been happening within USDA is 
we have been transferring the cost of trade to the public sector, and 
the private entities that benefit have not been carrying their fair 
share of the load.
  So let us hope we can find a solution to that that is fair to all.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Clayton), a very, very esteemed member of the 
authorizing committee, and one of the hardest-working Members of this 
Congress.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time. I want to commend both the chairman and the ranking member 
for their time and effort. They have been given a very difficult task 
of meeting the ever-demanding needs of the agricultural sector in the 
face of a difficult economy for agriculture, but also in the face of a 
number of environmental threats and trying to move us into the 21st 
century. They also have been given a very tight allocation, and I 
understand they are trying to work within the budget. I am on the 
Committee on the Budget, so I know the constraints that were imposed 
upon them.
  There are many things they did very, very well; and I want to commend 
them on that. Indeed, they did increase allocations for APHIS, which I 
will talk a little more about, and that is desperately needed. Those 
are some current threats that they are trying to provide sufficient 
funds to address those issues. They also recognized the ever-demanding 
need for research for agricultural communities and our institutions. 
Again, I think we have an opportunity to make sure as we increase those 
research dollars that there is some equity and parity among the 
institutions that we have. I will have a chance to discuss that a 
little later.
  So I want to commend them for all the things they have done. However, 
I do want to point out a couple of areas that I think we should give 
consideration to in the future. Although there were new dollars for 
APHIS, there is still environmental impact issues that we just heard 
about, the issue of the wheat. The funding in the bill is certainly to 
be commended. I had raised an amendment in the supplemental that was 
not approved, although in the notes that went forward, they 
acknowledged there was a need; and I want to say that we need to at 
least make the case to our Senator friends that we need to do even 
more. And as we write the farm bill, hopefully, we will be mindful of 
that fact.
  Nutrition, which is very dear to my heart, I want to commend the 
Committee on Appropriations for what they have done in increasing those 
areas. However, I would be remiss if I did not mention that WIC has 
identified that there is a need for 100,000 more eligible pregnant 
women and their children who may not receive basic needs. This is an 
issue I think we can do better on. I do not have an amendment for it, 
do not propose to have an amendment on it; but I just wanted to 
acknowledge that it is an area where I think we all would acknowledge 
we need to do more.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I plan to vote for this bill. I also 
plan to try to make this bill even better. It is a good bill that could 
be better.
  My final point is that I had hoped that the Kaptur amendment for the 
global lunch program would have been in order by the Committee on 
Rules. That is not the problem of the agriculture appropriation, but it 
is an issue for this Congress to recognize that we have an opportunity 
here to not only feed our children but to respond to hungry children 
across the world.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONILLA. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for agreeing to this 
colloquy.
  I want to address the pressing need of adequate funding for the WIC 
program. At current funding levels, States may be unable to serve 
approximately 200,000 low-income mothers, infants and children. From my 
State of Connecticut alone, 1,300 people would not be served.
  We know that the WIC program currently serves about 47 percent of all 
infants born in the United States, and we know the WIC dollars are 
excellent investments. Every dollar spent on WIC yields more than $3 in 
savings to the government in reduced spending on programs such as 
Medicaid.
  WIC has contributed to better birth outcomes and reduction in 
childhood anemia, key indicators of the health of American children. 
The program provides mothers, infants, and children with nutritious 
supplemental food packages, nutrition education and counseling, and a 
gateway to pre- and post-natal health care. The program also reduces 
fetal deaths and infant mortality and reduces low birth-weight rates.
  I might just say we have an average participation rate for this 
fiscal year at about 7.2 million. That reflects the average 
participation for the first half of the year through March. That 
historically is the kind of participation that we have seen in the 
past. December and February are always the lowest participation months. 
Last year, average participation for the first half of the year was 
nearly 50,000 below average participation for the year as a whole. 
According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, average WIC 
participation for the first 8 months of fiscal year 2001 was 80,000 
higher than average participation for the first 6 months of the year.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a concern that when unemployment increases, as 
it is doing, so does the poverty rate. And we need to understand that 
the WIC participation cannot increase as unemployment rises if none of 
the families that are eligible for WIC as a result of increased 
unemployment enroll.

                              {time}  1445

  I think if we are looking at the kinds of unemployment rates where 
there is the view that that unemployment rate is going to rise, then we 
are going to see an additional number of people who need to take 
advantage of the WIC program. We should do this now. State WIC programs 
make their decisions this fall about how to run their programs. As we 
move toward conference, and there are 302(b) reallocations, I would 
like to work with the chairman to address the potential funding 
shortage for the WIC program. If the administration's unemployment 
predictions come true, we will see that this very

[[Page 12244]]

essential program will not have enough funds to serve all eligible 
women, infants and children.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would be pleased to 
work with the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) on this issue. 
This program has widespread support of the Members in the whole House. 
As a result of the gentlewoman's efforts, the subcommittee has placed a 
priority on the program. We are aware that WIC participation levels can 
fluctuate above and below those forecast in administration budgets.
  I look forward to continuing my work with the gentlewoman to address 
the changes that may be brought on by adjustments in caseloads, and I 
thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for her efforts.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, even the New York Yankees sometimes lose, 
and it has been known that on occasion the Los Angeles Lakers lose a 
ballgame. But, Mr. Chairman, one organization never loses, and that 
organization has hundreds of victories to its credit and zero defeats 
in the United States Congress, and that is the pharmaceutical industry.
  For decades now, good people in the House and Senate, Democrats and 
Republicans, have attempted to do something about lowering the cost of 
prescription drugs in this country so that Americans do not have to pay 
by far the highest prices in the world for the medicine they need. And 
year after year with lies, distortions, well-paid lobbyists, massive 
amounts of advertising, and millions in campaign contributions, the 
pharmaceutical industry always wins. Americans die and suffer because 
they cannot afford the outrageous cost of prescription drugs, and we 
remain the only country in the industrialized world that does not in 
one way or another regulate the cost of prescription drugs.
  As part of this bill, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) 
and I will be introducing an amendment which is exactly the same as the 
Crowley amendment that 363 Members of this House voted for last year. 
This amendment will serve as a placeholder so we can move the 
reimportation bill forward that was passed overwhelmingly last year, 
but was not implemented.
  In a globalized economy, prescription drug distributors and 
pharmacists should be able to purchase and sell FDA safety-approved 
medicines at the same prices as in other countries. The passage of 
reimportation will lower the cost of medicine by 30 to 50 percent and 
enable Americans to pay the same prices as people in Canada, Europe, 
Mexico and all over the world.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is supported by the Alliance for Retired 
Americans; the Children's Foundation; Church Women United; The 
Communication Workers of America; Families U.S.A.; The National 
Education Association; Network, a national Catholic social justice 
lobby; the Presbyterian Church; Public Citizen; The Service Employees 
International Union, SEIU; and the Universal Health Care Action 
Network.
  Mr. Chairman, every time anyone comes up here to take on the 
pharmaceutical industry, their disinformation campaign goes forward; 
and this time in opposition to this amendment the issue is, quote/
unquote, ``safety.'' Every Member here should understand that this 
amendment does nothing to compromise safety, it only makes it possible 
to move the reimportation bill that we passed last year forward.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), who has fought so hard for the Global 
Food and Education Initiative.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill; and like 
many of my colleagues, I hope more funds may become available as we 
move forward in the appropriations process for critical programs that 
protect American farmers, conserve our soil and water, provide food aid 
abroad, and address hunger at home.
  I would like to speak for a few moments about one such program. The 
Global Food for Education Initiative began last year as a pilot 
program. I want to make clear based on the report language accompanying 
this bill that the committee expects this program to continue through 
fiscal year 2002, and in turn this program will provide approximately 9 
million hungry children in 38 countries with at least one nutritious 
meal each day and a chance to go to school.
  The report accompanying H.R. 2330 contains strong and explicit 
language in support of this program saying, ``The committee expects the 
Secretary of Agriculture shall continue in fiscal year 2002 the Global 
Food for Education Initiative program implemented in 2001 at the level 
implemented in fiscal year 2001. The assistance provided under this 
section shall be in addition to other demands for section 4169(b) and 
Public Law 480 title II commodities.''
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), and the gentlewoman from Missouri 
(Mrs. Emerson) for their leadership. This program, first proposed last 
year by former Senators George McGovern and Bob Dole, needs to be 
permanently established and authorized. Nothing illustrates this more 
than the difficult debates in the Committee on Appropriations and the 
Committee on Rules, where Members of both parties who support this 
initiative were faced with a difficult scoring issue because the 
program is funded under CCC authority.
  The gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) have 
introduced H.R. 1700 to make this pilot initiative a permanent program 
so that this debate never happens again. I call upon my colleagues to 
join the broad bipartisan coalition of Members who have cosponsored 
H.R. 1700.
  Mr. Chairman, I respectfully ask Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman 
to use her executive authority to extend funding for this program for 
fiscal year 2002. I also call upon the Secretary to provide immediately 
the basic administrative funding requested by such organizations as 
Catholic Relief Services and CARE so that they may carry out the pilot 
program in an efficient and productive manner. For the past 50 years, 
these organizations have implemented many of our best food and 
development programs. They are proven partners, and they guarantee that 
our food aid programs have an American face and character on the 
ground. Along with our farmers, they are among our best ambassadors 
abroad, and they deserve our support.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and ranking member for their work 
on this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to myself.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONILLA. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, the Repaupo Creek watershed in my district 
in New Jersey is in urgent need of a replacement tide gate and dike 
restoration project. The project is needed for several reasons, the 
most important of which is to provide flood protection for the 
residents of Logan and Greenwich Townships in Gloucester County. The 
Department of Agriculture's Natural Resource Conservation Service has 
the authority to undertake projects on watersheds that are smaller than 
250,000 acres. This project meets that requirement.
  Although the Repaupo Creek is a small watershed, the tide gate sits 
on the Delaware River, and there is some question whether a waiver will 
be required to do this project.
  Given the urgent need for this work to be completed, and given that 
New Jersey officials of the Department of Agriculture have expressed a 
desire and willingness to work on this project, I ask the chairman on 
behalf of the subcommittee to agree that there is jurisdiction under 
present law for USDA to

[[Page 12245]]

do the work repairing the Repaupo tide gate.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, while I have not 
examined this issue in particular in detail, I assure the gentleman 
from New Jersey that I will work with him on this and will consider 
inserting language into the final report regarding this matter.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as we close down general debate, I want to state my 
sincere thanks to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) for his 
openness in working through this bill. He has been responsive to all of 
our Members. We have had some testy moments at the subcommittee and 
full committee levels, but we have managed to keep walking forward; and 
I congratulate the gentleman on this first bill that he has brought to 
the full House.
  Mr. Chairman, regarding the issue of Karnal bunt and the wheat supply 
in Texas, a couple of years ago post-NAFTA, we had a situation in 
Arizona and in Texas, and I believe even in parts of California, where 
it was suspected that this fungus had moved into our wheat supply. This 
is a really serious issue. It essentially can make our wheat product 
unexportable. Already we are having trouble in our wheat markets as 
China now exports to us more wheat than PNTR ever anticipated. Now we 
have this real contamination inside our country.
  We need USDA's attention to this issue. I am going to enter into the 
Record a Sunday, June 24 article from the Associated Press on this 
question. It explains one of the reasons we fought so hard in this 
budget and in this bill for additional help for the inspector general, 
additional help for the Animal, Plant Health Inspection Service so we 
could have timely inspections and also avoid of these problems in the 
first place.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is not perfect. Let us hope as we move toward 
the Senate it can be made even better. But we ask for the membership's 
support. In closing down this general debate period, I would hope that 
we can move through the amendments in a very expeditious manner so 
Members can catch airplanes late tonight in order to get home.

               [From the Washington Post, June 24, 2001]

                  USDA Wheat Disease Reaction Faulted


    growers say the spread of karnal bunt fungus could be crippling

                          (By Roxana Hegeman)

       Anthony, Kan.--Bureaucratic bungling by the U.S. Department 
     of Agriculture has allowed the spread of a plant disease that 
     could prove as devastating to wheat exports as foot-and-mouth 
     disease has been to European livestock, farm groups said.
       Wheat growers in Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas say the USDA 
     responded too slowly to an outbreak of Karnal bunt at the 
     southernmost edge of the nation's wheat belt just as harvest 
     season was getting underway.
       Karnal bunt is a fungus that is harmless to people but 
     sours the taste and smell of flour made from infected 
     kernels. It also slightly cuts production in infected fields. 
     The disease's main impact is economic: 80 countries ban 
     imports of wheat grown in infected regions.
       That could be as crippling for American growers, who last 
     year produced nearly $6 billion of wheat, as would be the 
     discovery of foot-and-mouth disease in U.S. livestock, said 
     Brett Myers, executive vice president of the Kansas Wheat 
     Growers Association.
       Europe's foot-and-mouth outbreak has cost millions of 
     dollars for the slaughter of some 3 million animals and a ban 
     on exports.
       The suspected Karnal bunt contamination was first reported 
     to the USDA on May 25, and Michael Bryant, co-owner of the 
     elevator in Olney, Tex., that found it.
       But it was seven days before the USDA's Animal and Plant 
     Health Inspection Service (APHIS) confirmed the finding, and 
     15 days passed before it quarantined the first affected 
     counties.
       ``Their reaction to the situation was not as timely as we 
     would have liked,'' said Kansas Agriculture Secretary Jamie 
     Clover Adams.
       Charles P. Schwalbe, deputy director of APHIS's plant 
     protection and quarantine program, said his agency sent the 
     sample away for testing at a national lab instead of using a 
     local one to make sure it had accurate and legally defensible 
     information before taking action.
       ``The decisions that emerge . . . mean livelihood to people 
     from time to time,'' Schwalbe said.
       The Karnal bunt found in Throckmorton and Young counties in 
     Texas were the first confirmed cases in the nation's wheat 
     belt, an area extending from central Texas to Alberta, 
     Canada.
       On June 19, concern grew as the USDA added neighboring 
     Archer County to the quarantined area, followed by Baylor 
     County the next day. One elevator has also been quarantined 
     in Fort Worth, about 150 miles southeast.
       Karnal bunt, which originated in India, was first detected 
     in the United States in 1996 in Arizona and California. It 
     has since spread to southern Texas and New Mexico.
       In Arizona the amount of land used to grow wheat dropped 
     almost 50 percent after a quarantine was imposed in 1996 in 
     four counties, according to the Arizona Agricultural 
     Statistics Service.
       But Arizona is a minor durum wheat producer, and U.S. wheat 
     growers have reassured overseas buyers that the disease was 
     far from the nation's major winter wheat producing region. 
     Winter wheat, which is planted in the fall and harvested in 
     the spring, accounts for about two-thirds of U.S. wheat and 
     is used primarily for bread. Durum wheat is used for pasta.
       With half the winter wheat going to the export market, the 
     discovery of the disease at the southernmost edge of the 
     nation's breadbasket just as the wheat harvest was moving 
     north sent shock waves through the wheat belt.
       State regulators feared that custom harvesters--cutters who 
     follow the ripening wheat harvest from Texas to the Canadian 
     border--would spread the fungus.
       Oklahoma, just 50 miles from the two Texas counties where 
     the disease was first discovered, immediately closed its 
     borders and ordered combines coming into the state to be 
     blocked and inspected. Harvesters from infected areas without 
     a USDA certification of cleanliness were turned back.
       ``We need to preserve our heritage and our wheat industry. 
     The spread of Karnal bunt in Texas should be considered a 
     threat to Kansas wheat,'' said Kansas Gov. Bill Graves (R). 
     Kansas is the nation's biggest wheat producer, with a $1 
     billion crop and nearly 10 million planted acres.
       Rep. Frank D. Lucas (R-Okla.) has been pursuing the issue 
     after a request from growers for a congressional 
     investigation into the USDA's handling. His office said he 
     has not decided whether to ask for an inquiry.

  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Nethercutt), a very distinguished member of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time and for his kind remarks.
  Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to stand in support of this bill. We 
have had a lively and valuable discussion on both sides of the aisle on 
various issues.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the subcommittee chairman has done a wonderful 
job to put this bill together in essentially record fashion. I am 
grateful to him for his leadership.
  I am supportive of this bill because it has a strong research 
component for agriculture, production agriculture, to be sure that it 
has the tools and the information and the technology necessary to 
compete in a world market. That is what we need for our farmers.

                              {time}  1500

  I also am pleased that this bill under the chairman's leadership has 
increased food safety and inspection. We have the safest food supply in 
the world and we must make sure that we acknowledge that and do not 
denigrate it in debate on the issue, because we have a very safe 
system. We need to keep it safe. We will keep it safe with the 
resources that are available in this bill.
  At the subcommittee and the full committee level, I had raised the 
issue of ecoterrorism. When we spend multimillions of dollars on 
agriculture research but yet some of that research gets destroyed by 
extremists, ecoextremists who seek to destroy agriculture research, 
then we need to make sure we, as taxpayers and as Members of this body, 
protect that research.
  This is not the place or the time for that issue and the discussion 
surrounding it, but it is an issue that we need to attend. My 
expectation is that we will attend to it as we go through the 
legislative process later in this year. But I think those of us who 
care deeply about agriculture need to be critically aware that 
ecoterrorism is a reality in this country. We need to protect the 
research and the researchers.

[[Page 12246]]

  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the 
gentleman for this opportunity to express my strong support for his 
bill and point out a small provision of it that is extremely important 
to the farmers of the northeastern part of the Nation, particularly to 
those in Connecticut. I strongly support the increase in funding for 
the EQIP program, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, because 
it will help us achieve our national attainment goals in the area of 
clean water.
  The AFO/CAFO regulations are expensive. My State has adopted all of 
the implementing policy to assure compliance with the AFO/CAFO 
regulations; and the only reason frankly, the only possible way that 
small farmers can survive these costly regulations is through the 
technical assistance that the EQIP funds provide to them to help them 
determine what projects will, in fact, contain runoff. These funds give 
them some help in offsetting the costs of developing manure management 
programs and other modern approaches that will enable them to make a 
significant contribution to the cleanliness of our waterways and also, 
in the long run, to the revitalization of Long Island Sound.
  In New England, we have very steep, hilly farms. We also have more 
rainfall than other parts of the country. So the burden on us is, 
frankly, far higher than the burden on other parts of the country. We 
are not a part of the country that benefits much from the farm bill 
through its crop assistance and other programs, but so some of its 
conservation dollars, and these EQIP dollars, are extremely important 
to us. I thank the chairman for uncapping them and making more 
resources available for compliance with the AFO/CAFO requirements.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, our Committee has worked hard to bring a 
good bill to the House. We have made prudent recommendations for the 
use of the budgetary allocation available to us, and we have done 
yeoman work in keeping the bill free of contentious issues such as 
trade policy, that have caused concern in prior years. I think we have 
a very good bill, and I know that we will have a good debate. In 
closing, I would certainly hope that everyone would support this bill 
on final passage.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, today the House is considering funding for 
the fiscal year 2002 Agriculture appropriations bill. This bill 
provides funding for U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and 
Drug Administration.
  As a Member of Congress from a large agricultural district who is 
also concerned about this Nation's long-term fiscal health, I am 
concerned that this measure is yet another repeat of past agriculture 
spending packages--where Congress is providing fewer-and-fewer farmers 
with financial assistance.
  The failure of this Congress to make fundamental changes to existing 
agriculture policy, which had led to many farmers being driven off 
their land due to the perverse financial incentives, is beyond 
reasonable belief.
  It is my hope that future agriculture policy will be equitable, 
providing federal assistance--when needed--to all producers. It is my 
hope that future agriculture policy respects the broad diversity of 
rural America. It is my hope that future agriculture policy provides 
for clean and safe drinking water, along with improved soil and air 
quality.
  Mr. Chairman, this measure obviously covers more than just financial 
assistance to American farmers. In addition, it provides important 
funding for nutrition programs, food inspection, and safety. For these 
reasons, it is very important that this measure is passed.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, in January 1997, when the 
Asian Longhorned Beetle was first spotted in the United States right in 
the heart of Brooklyn, I called on the Department of Agriculture to do 
everything in its power to eradicate this tree-killing beetle before it 
devastated the Northeast urban forestry network. The strong efforts 
from the Agriculture Department, in close coordination with State and 
city agencies, slowed the beetles spread significantly, but sadly, New 
York has lost more than 5,000 trees in less than 6 years from beetle 
infestation.
  In recent years, I have held numerous community forums on the issue 
to raise awareness about the beetle's devastating effects and to 
discuss strategies to prevent the spread of beetle infestation.
  I have also worked closely with my colleagues in the New York 
delegation to secure adequate funding to stop the beetle before it 
spreads deeply throughout the Northeast region and into the rest of the 
country.
  My aim has always been the protection of our farmlands, our trees and 
our forests through the containment and complete eradication of the 
Asian Longhorned Beetle.
  This year's Agriculture Budget provides crucial resources toward that 
end, with $35 million appropriated to fight the Asian Longhorned 
Beetle, citrus canker, and the plum pox virus. This is a significant 
increase in funding for a very significant problem. Unchecked, costs 
from the spread of the Asian Longhorned Beetle could rise as high as 
$41 billion nationwide.
  I want to thank Congressman Bonilla and Congresswoman Kaptur for 
including these significant funds to battle the beetle.
  I also want to note that the Interior budget currently includes 
almost $24 million for the U.S. Forest Service for the Cooperative Land 
Forest Health Management program specifically to fight the spread of 
the gypsy moth and the Asian Longhorned Beetle.
  Resources for the fight against beetle infestation are especially 
important to New York City. Just this month, 60 trees from Calvary 
Cemetery in my district in Queens were cut down, chipped, and burned to 
the root because of beetle infestation. Additional trees were recently 
cut down in Astoria and Woodside Queens.
  In fact, since the beginning of this year, the Brooklyn, Queens 
region has lost close to 300 more trees to beetle infestation. 
Manhattan has lost more than 50 trees and the Bayside area lost more 
than 150 trees. The total loss for the New York City, Long Island area 
is up to 5,300 trees.
  The beetle is simply devastating large portions of the region. With 
new resources, we will be able to fund areas where there have been 
significant shortfalls. We will be able to train our residents to 
identify the beetle and respond appropriately if they spot one. We will 
be able to increase funds for tree inspections, removal, and 
reforestation efforts.
  Also, we will continue to move forward with new treatments for 
healthy trees that help prevent beetle infestation. In short, we will 
battle this menace on all fronts to protect our trees, our environment, 
and our quality of life.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in support of H.R. 
2330, the Agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002.
  This Member would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Bonilla), the chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations 
Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), 
the ranking member of the subcommittee, for their hard work in bringing 
this bill to the floor.
  Mr. Chairman, this Member certainly recognizes the severe budget 
constraints under which the full Appropriations Committee and the 
Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee operated. In light of these 
constraints, this Member is grateful and pleased that this legislation 
includes funding for several important projects of interest to the 
State of Nebraska.
  First, this Member is pleased that H.R. 2330 provides $461,000 for 
the Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance (MAFMA). The alliance 
is an association of 12 leading research universities and corporate 
partners. Its purpose is to develop and facilitate the transfer of new 
food manufacturing and processing technologies.
  The MAFMA awards grants for research projects on a peer review basis. 
These awards must be supported by an industry partner willing to 
provide matching funds. During the seventh year of competition, MAFMA 
received 39 proposals requesting a total of $1,382,555. Eleven 
proposals were funded for a total of $348,147. Matching funds from 
industry for these funded projects total $605,601 with an additional 
$57,115 from in-kind funds. These figures convincingly demonstrate how 
successful the alliance has been in leveraging support from the food 
manufacturing and processing industries.
  Mr. Chairman, the future viability and competitiveness of the U.S. 
agricultural industry depends on its ability to adapt to increasing 
worldwide demands for U.S. exports of intermediate and consumer good 
exports. In order to meet these changing worldwide demands, 
agricultural research must also adapt to provide more emphasis on 
adding value to our basic farm commodities. The Midwest Advanced Food 
Manufacturing Alliance can provide the necessary cooperative link 
between universities and industries for the development of competitive 
food manufacturing and processing technologies. This will, in turn, 
ensure

[[Page 12247]]

that the U.S. agricultural industry remains competitive in an 
increasingly competitive global economy.
  This Member is also pleased that this bill includes $200,000 to fund 
the National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC) at the University of 
Nebraska-Lincoln. This project is in its fourth year and has assisted 
numerous States and cities in developing drought plans and developing 
drought response teams. Given the nearly unprecedented levels of 
drought in several parts of our country, this effort is obviously 
important.
  Furthermore, this Member is also pleased that the measure provides 
$700,000 for efforts at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln to improve 
biomass for feedstocks. The research will benefit the environment and 
the agricultural economy. It also holds the potential to greatly reduce 
the nation's dependence on foreign sources of energy.
  Another important project funded by this bill is the Alliance for 
Food Protection, a joint project between the University of Nebraska and 
the University of Georgia. The mission of this alliance is to assist 
the development and modification of food processing and preservation 
technologies. This technology will help ensure that Americans continue 
to receive the safest and highest quality food possible.
  This Member is also pleased that the legislation funds the following 
ongoing Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service 
(CSREES) projects at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln: Food 
Processing Center: $42,000; non-food agricultural products: $64,000; 
sustainable agricultural systems: $59,000; Rural Policy Research 
Institute (RUPRI) (a joint effort with Iowa State University and the 
University of Missouri): $1,300,000.
  In addition, this Member is pleased that the bill directs the 
Agriculture Research Service to collect and focus $300,000 at the 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln to address sorghum fungal plant 
pathology concerns. This funding will fill a critical need for fungal 
pathology research for sorghum in the central Great Plains and the 
United States.
  This Member would also note that H.R. 2330 includes $99.77 million 
for the section 538, the rural rental multifamily housing loan 
guarantee program. The program provides a Federal guarantee on loans 
made to eligible persons by private lenders. Developers will bring 10 
percent of the cost of the project to the table, and private lenders 
will make loans for the balance. The lenders will be given a 100 
percent Federal guarantee on the loans they make. Unlike the current 
section 515 direct loan program, where the full costs are borne by the 
Federal Government, the only costs to the Federal Government under the 
538 Guarantee Program will be for administrative costs and potential 
defaults.
  Mr. Chairman, this Member certainly appreciates the $3.1 billion 
appropriation for the Department of Agriculture's Section 502 
Unsubsidized Loan Guarantee Program. The program has been very 
effective in rural communities by guaranteeing loans made by approved 
lenders to eligible income households in small communities of up to 
20,000 residents in nonmetropolitan areas and in rural areas. The 
program provides guarantees for 30-year fixed-rate mortgages for the 
purchase of an existing home or the construction of a new home.
  Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, this Member supports H.R. 2330 and urges 
his colleagues to approve it.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for 
H.R. 2330, the FY 2002 Agriculture appropriations bill. I am pleased 
that the Appropriations Committee has both supported our farmers and 
displayed fiscal discipline by remaining close to the President's 
budget request. This responsible bill addresses the needs of our 
nation's farmers and ranchers while keeping in mind the desire of 
American consumers to buy affordable and safe agriculture products.
  I want to commend the full committee for passing a number of 
important amendments. Specifically, I am pleased that employees of the 
Farm Service Agency will be better able to deliver farm ownership, farm 
operating, and disaster loans through improved salary and expense 
funding and through additional resources for agricultural credit 
programs. This assistance will come as a welcome relief as the workload 
of this vital agency has grown in response to a weakening farm economy.
  I am also pleased with the investment this bill makes in the future 
safety and health of our citizens and our environment. The research 
that will be facilitated and advanced through this bill will ensure the 
continued quality of our food supply by improving safeguards. The 
conservation programs within the bill also reflect foresight. The 
desire of farmers to preserve American soil exemplifies the respect and 
attachment they have for the land in which they are invested.
  Lastly, I am encouraged by the Distance Learning and Telemedicine 
Program which will link rural Americans with resources and 
opportunities previously available only in urban areas. As we seek a 
prosperous future for our rural residents, we must find ways to 
stimulate local economies. This bill advances that goal through 
education and enhanced services that will enable individuals and 
families to stay in their hometowns while receiving education and 
health services. Using technology to provide useful links between rural 
and urban areas will slow the flight to cities and preserve smaller 
towns and municipalities, which are vital pieces of the American 
fabric.
  I commend the chairman and all of the members of the committee for 
crafting this responsible bill.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2330, the 
Agriculture Appropriations Act, a bill considered on the floor today 
which makes appropriations for the Department of Agriculture and 
related agencies. But more specifically, I rise in strong opposition to 
the increase provided in the bill for the Food and Drug Administration 
(FDA) and would like to call the House's attention to a problem that 
one of my constituents has been having with the agency and one that I 
believe deserves careful consideration by the oversight committees in 
this chamber.
  Recently, the FDA gave final approval of my constituent's Pre-Market 
Application for both total and partial joint implants after an 
exhaustive and blatantly biased 2-year review, but not before costing 
his company over $8 million in legal fees, lost wages, and profits.
  In April 1999, I received a phone call and letter from TMJ Implants, 
a company located in Golden Colorado, in my district, which had been 
having problems with the review of its Premarket Approval Application 
of the TMJ Total and Fossa-Eminence Prosthesis. Up until last year, the 
company was the premier market supplier of temporomandibular joint 
prosthesis.
  Over the last 2 years, I have taken an active interest and an active 
role in monitoring the progress of TMJ Implants' application, which was 
finally approved in February. On numerous occasions, I met with Dr. Bob 
Christensen, president of TMJ Implants, to find out information about 
the approval of the partial and total joint, and personally talked to 
FDA Commissioner Jane Henney and to members of the Agency about the 
status of the company's applications. I was also, and continue to be, 
in contact with the House Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight, which has 
sole jurisdiction over the FDA and issues relating to abuse and the 
internal operations of the agency.
  Specifically, I closely followed this case since my office's first 
contact with Dr. Christensen and TMJ Implants in early May 1999, after 
a meeting of the FDA's Dental Products Panel of the Medical Devices 
Advisory Committee was held to review the company's PMA and recommended 
approval of the PMA by a 90 vote. From this point onward, the FDA 
engaged in an obvious pattern of delay and deception and even went as 
far as to remove TMJ Implants' Fossa-Eminence Prosthesis from the 
market, which had been available for almost 40 years. This had done 
nothing more than to cause harm to patients and cost the company 
millions of dollars.
  This was done at the same time that the application for TMJ Concepts, 
a competitor of TMJ Implants, sailed through the process. Several 
allegations have come to light over the last two years detailing the 
fact that several Agency employees have worked under the direction of 
TMJ Concepts' associates.
  The agency went so far as to reconvene a new Medical Devices Advisory 
Committee late last year, with a clear majority of its members lacking 
the required expertise, which denied the company's application.
  It was not until Mr. Bernard Statland, the new Director of the Office 
of Device Evaluation (ODE) was brought in that the logjam was broken 
the PMA was quickly approved.
  As the above demonstrates, several concerns remain about the process 
that has taken place over the last two years. It is no secret that 
everyone involved in this case believes that there have been 
significant question raised about the process--the sluggish pace of the 
review of the engineering data for both the total and partial joint 
and, more importantly, the constant ``moving of the goal posts'' during 
the review of both PMAs.
  Over the last 2 years, my office has received numerous letters from 
physicians all across the country--from the Mayo Clinic to the 
University of Maryland--each describing the benefit of the partial 
joint and the fact that the partial and total joint results in 
immediate and dramatic in pain, an increase in range of motion and 
increased function.
  While I am, of course, pleased that the application has been approved 
by the FDA after

[[Page 12248]]

much delay, the circumstances of the last 2 years calls into question 
the integrity of the agency and, it is for this reason that I bring it 
to the House's attention.
  Dr. Christensen is a true professional and a pioneer in his field and 
holder of the first patents. His implants are widely accepted as 
effective and safe throughout the dental and surgery community--indeed, 
several of my constituents have literally had their lives changed by 
the procedure. I am convinced that the work of TMJ is and always has 
been based on solid, scientific principles and the removal of the 
implants work of TMJ is and always has been on solid, scientific 
principles and the removal of the implants from the market had been 
erroneous, contrary to the Agency's earlier findings and the statutory 
standard that should be applied. This was devastating to thousands in 
the general public and devastating to the financial status of the 
company.
  Later this year, the House of Representatives will consider 
legislation reauthorizing the Food and Drug Administration and I would 
like to urge the House Commerce Committee to hold hearings on the TMJ 
Implant case and to conduct a thorough investigation into the FDA's 
review of the Premarket Approval Application of the TMJ Fossa-Eminence 
Prosthesis.
  I would like to take this opportunity to submit into the Record two 
articles from FDAWebview which shed light on the TMJ Implant case.

                    [From FDAWebview, Feb. 28, 2001]

     ``Full Disclosure'' Standard in TMJ Approval Opens New FDA Era

       Instead of FDA tying itself in knots trying to guarantee no 
     inappropriate patient exposures to implanted devices--and 
     stalling a product in mid-review as a result--yesterday's 
     approval of the TMJ Implants Fossa-Eminence Prosthesis set a 
     new ``full disclosure'' labeling standard that lifts that 
     self-imposed burden from the agency and should expedite other 
     product reviews. TMJ Implants' pre-1976 jaw joint devices was 
     stalled for 20 months in a classification PMA review until 
     new Office of Device Evaluation (ODE) director Bernard 
     Statland broke the logjam. In doing this, he was implementing 
     one stage of a bold new Center policy on innovative public 
     use of clinical device information articulated last year by 
     Center director David Feigal--placing such FDA-held 
     information in the hands of physicians and patients.
       According to one of the two attorneys who steered the TMJ 
     Implants submission through its FDA ordeal, Mike Cole 
     (Bergeson & Campbell), yesterday's approval is the first he's 
     seen in 25 years of dealing with ODE where the agency stepped 
     back from its ``appropriate use'' worries and left them to 
     physicians and patients to decide, based on full disclosure 
     in labeling of the device's real-world limitations--including 
     the availability of no-device alternative therapies.
       Under the Fossa-Eminence labeling's Warnings section is a 
     boxed statement headed, ``The medical literature reports,'' 
     with four bulleted statements:
       That many cases of Internal Derangement resolve after non-
     surgical treatment, or, in some cases, with no treatment at 
     all.
       That the complexity of contributing factors in this patient 
     population must be considered in the diagnosis and decision 
     to surgically treat patients.
       That replacement surgery, therefore, should be utilized 
     only as a last resort after other treatment options are 
     exhausted or determined not to be warranted in the medical 
     judgment of the physician/dentist in consultation with the 
     patient.
       That the Wilkes classification is a guide in determining 
     the severity of the disease. This classification should not 
     be relied on as a sole criterion for surgical treatment.
       ``It really is a striking difference in philosophy,'' Cole 
     told FDA Webview. ``It discloses that a lot of patients have 
     responded without surgery . . . It describes situations where 
     the doctor arrives at the diagnosis that surgery may be 
     appropriate, but it doesn't prejudge it. Over the years, 
     there have been all these notable instances of concern about 
     off-label use of products and misuse of products, and part of 
     it comes, I think, from a mentality that we have to be 100% 
     sure that it will be used appropriately. As a result, 
     manufacturers have started submitting applications with more 
     and more restricted indication statements in them because 
     that can get through the system.''
       Cole and colleague David Rosen (McDermott, Will & Emery) 
     believe the TM) Implants devices had been logjammed at FDA 
     for so long simply because reviewers were afraid the products 
     would be used inappropriately--an FDA syndrome that has 
     effected many other products over the years. ``A lot of 
     times, what it really comes down to is demands for more data, 
     more data, more data,'' Cole explained, ``because the 
     reviewers are not comfortable with the idea that the device 
     ought to be on the market, or available. The way out of that 
     is to keep asking for more information.''
       In TMJ Implants' case, he said, review leader Susan Runner 
     ``held what I think was a very honest and sincere concern 
     about the device being used in cases where patients might 
     respond without surgical treatment. Because the studies 
     hadn't been set up to prove exactly what I think we had 
     demonstrated, she had this really deep-seated concern about 
     the product being used, and it just went round and round in 
     circles. We had no apparent instances of misuse of the 
     device, but we were getting nowhere.
       ``When we had this meeting with Dr. Statland, he got up 
     with a whiteboard and started talkng abut the data, and he 
     said to his people, `You know, we've got a lot of information 
     here; what we need to do is figure out how we're going to 
     present this information to the doctor so that the doctor and 
     the patient understand exactly where surgery fits in this and 
     make sure we discuss the limitations of the data.' For the 
     first time that I've heard this in 25 years dealing with 
     Center, he said: `We'll discuss this information in the 
     labeling and we'll let the doctors and the patients decide 
     whether they want to use the device--we won't decide for 
     them.''
       Statland, Cole said, stopped the reviewers' agonizing at 
     the point where reasonable assurance of safety and efficacy 
     had been demonstrated, thus preventing the agency from 
     continuing to stray into attempts to secure an absolute 
     guarantee that the product would not be used improperly. ``In 
     a way it's a kind of subtle point, but in a way it's also a 
     sledgehammer point. When Dr. Statland said `This is what 
     we're going to do,' it was over.''
                                  ____


                 [From the FDA Webview, Feb. 27, 2001]

   Toughest Device Approval Clears Last of Embattled Firm's Implants

       Ending a 20-month, $6 million ordeal for Colorado-based TMJ 
     Implants Inc., CDRH Office of Device Evaluation director 
     Bernard Statland 2/27 approved the last and most important of 
     the company's two PMAs--for the TMJ Fossa-Eminence 
     Prosthesis. Without his personal involvement in the review--
     including private discussions with several oral surgeons, it 
     would still be bogged down, observed TMJ Implants' attorney, 
     former FDAer David Rosen (McDermott, Will & Emery) who with 
     Mike Cole (Bergeson & Campbell) helped propel the tortured 
     review to its successful conclusion; Rosen ranks this 
     approval at the top of the toughest FDA approvals he has 
     experienced, inside or outside the agency, including both 
     generic drugs and medical devices.
       At one point, FDA reviewers allegedly predicted the Fossa-
     Eminence, or partial jaw joint, would never be approved. The 
     only device of its type every marketed, it attracted heavy 
     reviewer skepticism. Then, last month, the company's two-part 
     total joint, of which the Fossa-Eminence is a component, was 
     approved. This seemed like a consolation prize, because the 
     total had been only a small part of the company's business. 
     TMJ Implants CEO Robert Christensen recalls an FDA manager 
     asking whether the company could not be satisfied just with 
     the total while the agency continued to consider the partial. 
     ``I told them we could not survive on the total,'' he said.
       In 1998, as it was moving against his pre-1976 devices 
     pending classification and PMA submission, FDA approved a new 
     competitor's total joint, indicating agency satisfaction with 
     that technology, especially the competitor's plastic cup 
     (Christensen's devices are all-metal).
       The final labeling of the Christensen Fossa-Eminence now 
     actually gives his partial device more indications than he 
     originally asked for, and effectively restores the device to 
     all of its marketed uses before FDA's classification process 
     removed it from commerce 20 months ago (the company had 
     reduced the indications it was requesting based on FDA and 
     advisory panel suggestions). The new approval lists these 
     indications:
       Internal derangement confirmed to be pathological in origin 
     by both clinical observation and radiographic findings, where 
     the patient has moderate to severe pain and/or disabling 
     dysfunction and has not responded to less invasive, 
     conventional therapy;
       Inflammatory arthritis involving the temporomandibular 
     joint not responsive to other modalities of treatment; 
     Recurrent fibrosis and/or bony ankylosis not responsive to 
     other modalities of treatment;
       Failed tissue graft;
       Failed alloplastic joint reconstruction.
       These indications all had to be justified by a prospective 
     clinical study that Christensen and oral surgeons using these 
     devices had provided, but that CDRH's Division of Dental, 
     Infection Control and General Hospital Devices had difficulty 
     evaluating. Statland told FDA Webview he injected himself 
     into the review because it was ``stuck.'' It helped that his 
     wife once had a TMJ condition that did not require surgery--
     he learned as much as he could about ``this very complex 
     problem, which has many causes and many different 
     treatments.''
       As he got into the TMJ Implants controversy, he discovered 
     that the parties' positions had hardened through 
     communication breakdowns, which he was able to soften. 
     ``There was venting on both sides,'' Statland said.
       ``The message is,'' he told us, ``that those companies that 
     are very conscientious in prospective studies, that have the 
     data, find that that speaks much louder than anything else. 
     Anecdotal information is fine, opinions

[[Page 12249]]

     of various people and declarations are fine, but we have to 
     look at the numbers. I think that's the take-home lesson.''
       With TMJ Implants, Statland said, FDA played ``a 
     consultative role,'' although he would not address 
     Christensen's complaints that the early stages of the review 
     were far from consultative. ``I'm pro-technology,'' he 
     stressed. ``I want good devices to be out there. Those things 
     are going to help people. At the same time, I want full 
     disclosure, so people can make good decisions.''
       Rosen acknowledged that after Statland began opening up the 
     issues dividing the company from reviewers, there were holes 
     in the data (e.g., patients lost to follow-up) that the 
     company had provided and that reviewers apparently didn't 
     know how to assess. After one round-table discussion, on 2/9, 
     he and Mike Cole worked through the weekend to extract from 
     the company's prospective clinical study data a subset 
     analysis of patients who had at least three years' experience 
     with the Fossa-Eminence implant. On 2/13, he presented this 
     to the reviewers, and it answered all of their questions. 
     That left only the labeling, which then moved quickly to 
     completion.
       Christensen, who had enlisted legal, political and media 
     help in his frustration with the process, told us 2/27 he is 
     now ``very pleased'' with the result, although he thinks FDA 
     owes him for some of his extraordinary costs in restoring his 
     two devices to the market. He has resumed full marketing 
     efforts. By his calculations, he has $6 million to $8 million 
     in losses to make up.

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule and the amendment printed in House Report 107-
118 is adopted.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2330

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2002, and for other purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                         AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

                 Production, Processing, and Marketing

                        Office of the Secretary

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, and not to exceed $75,000 for employment under 5 
     U.S.C. 3109, $3,015,000: Provided, That not to exceed $11,000 
     of this amount shall be available for official reception and 
     representation expenses, not otherwise provided for, as 
     determined by the Secretary: Provided further, That none of 
     the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this 
     Act may be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel 
     of the Department of Agriculture to carry out section 
     793(c)(1)(C) of Public Law 104-127: Provided further, That 
     none of the funds made available by this Act may be used to 
     enforce section 793(d) of Public Law 104-127.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Kaptur

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

       Amendment offered by Ms. Kaptur:
       In title I, under the heading ``Office of the Secretary'' 
     insert after the first dollar amount the following: 
     ``(reduced by $1,700)''.
       In title V, under the heading ``Foreign Agricultural 
     Service''-``salaries and expenses'' insert after the second 
     dollar amount the following: ``(increased by $1,700)''.

  Ms. KAPTUR (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, throughout the consideration of our bill at 
the subcommittee level and full committee level, we very, very much 
wanted to have a straightforward appropriation for continuation of the 
Global Food for Education program. Thus far we have been unable to 
achieve that in the base bill and have only been able to achieve report 
language that essentially says that we, as the Congress, expect that 
the Secretary of Agriculture will continue a program begun last year 
that is moving our surplus commodities and food commodities around the 
world to 38 countries, feeding over 9 million needy children. This 
program is a win-win for America's farmers and ranchers and definitely 
a win-win for hungry children around the world, including young girls 
who are encouraged to go to school and receive a decent ration in 
whatever country they might live.
  Unfortunately, in the base bill, there is not $300 million 
appropriated to continue this program straightforwardly. Rather, all we 
have is some language that says to the Secretary, ``We think it's a 
great idea; we hope you can figure out a way to continue the program; 
and we expect you to continue the program.''
  The purpose of this amendment as drafted would be to symbolically 
take $1,700 from the Secretary's own accounts and to make those 
available to the Foreign Agricultural Service. Now, we know $1,700 is 
not a whole lot, you might be able to buy some stationery with that, 
but the number 1700 happens to be the number of the McGovern-Emerson 
bill, which is the bill that would permanently authorize this program 
for which we would appropriate necessary funds in any fiscal year.
  Now, the program as it currently operates is having a tremendous 
impact around the world. In fact, there are some countries where 
organizations are now building schools, albeit humble schools, maybe 
thatched roof schools, where children are coming to receive this food. 
It has gotten tremendous support from so many of our nongovernmental 
organizations, like Catholic Charities, like ACDI/VOCA, like Mercy 
Corps, like CARE, the very organizations that the World Food Program 
works through all across the world to feed those who are most in need.
  So the purpose of this amendment as drafted really is to say, look, 
why are we involved in this budget charade of saying to the Congress: 
if we directly appropriate $300 million, we can't do that because we 
break some sacrosanct budget rule here and, therefore, we can't 
appropriate real dollars. So we'll just put report language in the 
bill. Compare this to the other option that, well, if it goes over to 
the Secretary, she can spend the dollars out of the Commodity Credit 
Corporation and it doesn't score.
  I do not think there is a person in my district that would understand 
this kind of budget charade. So the purpose of this amendment is really 
to draw attention to what is happening here and to say that a large 
number of our Members on this side of the aisle really want this 
program to have permanently appropriated dollars. We want to be able to 
do that as a House. We are handcuffed in the procedures allowed through 
subcommittee and full committee in order to achieve that.
  It is not my intention to move forward with this amendment because I 
do not want to do a fig leaf. I want to do a real appropriation. But I 
want to use this amendment as a mechanism to allow others who support 
this program to speak and to, in the strongest language possible, let 
the administration know that we are serious. Quite frankly, as this 
bill moves to conference, it is my intention, working with some of my 
other colleagues, to bring this up in the other body.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Bonilla) as well as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) with regard to the 
continuation of the Global Food for Education Initiative.
  Mr. Chairman, the Global Food for Education Initiative was 
implemented as a pilot program during fiscal year 2001. The Department 
of Agriculture used $300 million of discretionary funds from the 
Commodity Credit Corporation to start this pilot program.
  I have joined with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) 
and others in introducing the George McGovern-Robert Dole International 
Food for Education and Child Nutrition

[[Page 12250]]

Act of 2001 so that we actually can authorize this program for a 5-year 
period. However, it is unlikely that this authorizing legislation will 
be approved in time to provide a seamless transition from the pilot to 
the authorized program for fiscal year 2002.
  An amendment was offered to continue the pilot program at the current 
level of funding during our markup in the agriculture appropriations 
subcommittee, but we determined that, for lots of reasons, it would not 
be part of our bill today. However, I was pleased at the efforts of the 
gentleman from Texas to include language explaining that the House of 
Representatives expects the Department of Agriculture to continue the 
GFEI pilot program in the fiscal year 2002.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that the committee supports the 
international school feeding programs. I would like to see the GFEI 
continued for the next fiscal year. Is it the gentleman from Texas' 
expectation that the Department of Agriculture will continue to fund 
this program at its current level in fiscal year 2002?
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. EMERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BONILLA. It is hard to speculate as to what the Department is 
going to do, but I can assure her that this is something that we are 
all concerned about. I know the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) has 
worked on this as well, along with the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. McGovern), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), and others. 
The subcommittee included report language that encourages the Secretary 
to continue this program at the same level as the current fiscal year. 
Accordingly, I will be pleased to work with the gentlewoman to see that 
USDA continues a program they initiated administratively.
  Mrs. EMERSON. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. EMERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. First of all, I want to thank the gentlewoman from 
Missouri for yielding and for her incredible leadership on this issue; 
and I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for his work on this issue 
and for the strong language included in the fiscal year 2002 
agriculture appropriations report. I appreciate the gentleman's words 
and his dedication to the continuation of this important program. I 
look forward to working with him and others on this committee to try to 
persuade Secretary Veneman to make sure that she does continue this 
program at the current level.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a letter of support for this 
program co-signed by former Senators Bob Dole and George McGovern.


                                               Washington, DC,

                                                    June 12, 2001.
     Hon. C.W. Young,
     Chairman, House Appropriations Committee, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: We would like to encourage you to ensure 
     that funding continues for fiscal year 2002 for the 
     President's Global Food for Education Initiative.
       It would be tragic to initiate school feeding programs that 
     benefit 9 million children, only to have those programs 
     abruptly terminated.
       We hope that you will support continuing funding for this 
     program in fiscal year 2002 at the same levels as fiscal year 
     2001 when you consider the FY02 Agriculture Appropriations 
     Bill in Committee this week.
           Sincerely,
     George McGovern.
     Bob Dole.

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. EMERSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to thank the gentlewoman from 
Missouri for her tremendous leadership on this issue and also the 
gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. McGovern. The two of them have been 
vigilant all through our efforts in subcommittee and full committee. I 
want to thank the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Bonilla, for trying to do 
as much as he could do. I would hope that we might even consider doing 
a joint letter to the Secretary as we move toward conference, if that 
is possible, in order that this program be given the serious attention 
that it demands at the Department of Agriculture. I want to thank all 
my colleagues for their tremendous efforts.
  Also, I understand Senator Dole has gone through a bit of a procedure 
at the Cleveland Clinic recently. If he is watching this, I hope our 
remarks make him feel better. I also want to thank Senator McGovern who 
has been such a stalwart supporter and innovator, a genius really on 
this program. We thank him for traveling up here recently to join us in 
a press conference in front of the Capitol. We hope in their stead here 
today that we do what is necessary to continue this program.
  Mrs. EMERSON. I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio. The gentleman from 
Massachusetts and I thank the gentleman from Texas for his 
clarification on this issue.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few observations about the 
conversation that we have just heard with respect to this proposal. I 
think the key words that Members ought to keep in mind were the words 
of the subcommittee chairman. When he was asked whether or not he did 
expect the Department to, in fact, continue this program, he correctly 
pointed out that it is always difficult to predict what any agency, 
including USDA, will do. That is precisely why, in my view, the 
committee should have adopted the amendment that we tried to have 
attached in full committee and why this House should have voted on it 
today.

                              {time}  1515

  Here is the situation that we face on this issue. We have had, for 
the past year, a pilot program going on which in essence takes the 
value of surplus food in this country and uses it to provide nutrition 
for young children abroad.
  We have been asked by former Senator George McGovern and former 
Senator Bob Dole, who each on occasion was honored with the nomination 
of his party to the Presidency of the United States, we have been asked 
by both of them to continue the program and to make it a long-term 
commitment. That is something we ought to do.
  I would submit that no one in the history of the Congress knows more 
about child nutrition than George McGovern and Bob Dole. They devoted a 
good deal of their life to seeing to it that children in this country 
were adequately nourished, and they are trying to also do something to 
recognize that we have responsibilities to people around the world who 
are not as fortunate as we are.
  The problem we have is that when the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur) and others sought to offer the amendment, we were told if we 
offer the amendment and if we do that in this bill, then this bill will 
be scored and that will hurt us vis-a-vis the Budget Act.
  I would simply say I think this is a sad example of how we have been 
tied up by some of the ludicrous accounting rules that get in the way 
of our achieving needed policy goals.
  We are stuck in a battle of accountants and the lawyerly 
interpretation of what accountants tell us and, as a result, we are 
prevented from doing something which we obviously ought to do.
  We have one problem. The agency has not decided to proceed. This 
Congress had a choice. It could tell the agency to get off the dime and 
proceed or it could pass the buck. For bookkeeping reasons, this 
Congress has decided to pass the buck. I think that is unfortunate. It 
seems to me that if the Congress had indicated today, through an 
amendment on this legislation, that we were directing them to proceed, 
the agency would have proceeded. We would then have not had the 
accounting problem and we could have, in fact, delivered on this 
program.
  We have a simple choice. We have surplus commodities in this country. 
The question is, will the taxpayers be asked to pay money in order to 
store them or will they be asked to pay money in order to ship them so 
they can be used to provide nutrition for young children abroad who 
need them?

[[Page 12251]]

  That is a win-win proposition, both for those kids and our farmers. 
It ought to also help our consciences as well, and I think it is indeed 
unfortunate that we have been prevented from offering the amendment 
today.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I reserve the 
right, as we move toward conference, to reinject this issue into the 
debate as we further perfect this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                          Executive Operations


                            chief economist

       For necessary expenses of the Chief Economist, including 
     economic analysis, risk assessment, cost-benefit analysis, 
     energy and new uses, and the functions of the World 
     Agricultural Outlook Board, as authorized by the Agricultural 
     Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1622g), and including 
     employment pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a) 
     of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), of which not to 
     exceed $5,000 is for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109, 
     $7,704,000.


                       national appeals division

       For necessary expenses of the National Appeals Division, 
     including employment pursuant to the second sentence of 
     section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), of 
     which not to exceed $25,000 is for employment under 5 U.S.C. 
     3109, $12,869,000.

  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the chairman of 
the committee. I had intended to offer an amendment today to provide 
funding to make it easier for students to purchase organic and whole 
foods in the school breakfast and lunch programs, but I will not offer 
my amendment today. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Bonilla), and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur) for their support of my intention to assist schools in 
purchasing healthy foods for their school breakfast and lunch programs.
  This would include organic, locally grown and fresh produce. At a 
time when our children's health is threatened by such conditions as 
obesity and type II diabetes, it is more important than ever to ensure 
that they have healthy options when they eat at school.
  Currently, our tax dollars buy a high fat, high caffeine, fast food 
diet, which is turning into an extremely expensive public health 
problem. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 
youth nutrition and obesity are an epidemic in the United States. The 
Healthy Farms and Healthy Kids Report states that the awful irony is 
that our multibillion dollar investment is yielding a multibillion 
dollar public health crisis in school-aged children while at the same 
time 85 percent of family farmers who are perched precariously on the 
edge of urban sprawl are threatened with extinction. In many school 
districts in my State of California and around the Nation, urban, 
rural, and suburban, it is a real challenge to serve fresh, ethnically 
diverse meals prepared on-site from whole ingredients obtained by local 
farms.
  With the commitment from the schools and the community, things can be 
better. In my district, for example, in Berkeley, California, they are 
facilitating a district-wide food systems-based curriculum supporting 
garden classrooms and cooking programs in every school.
  In Berkeley, local funding has allowed the schools to have a garden 
in every school, and they are opening fresh salad bars with organic and 
other fresh foods. So this will help our schools and our local farmers 
and, of course, our students. With large purchasers like schools, we 
believe we will demonstrate that we can bring more healthy foods into 
our schools while lowering the costs but still supporting our farmers. 
So I would just like to ask the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) for 
his help really in the future to secure funds to make it easier to get 
healthy foods from our farms to our children and to our schools, of 
course. I look forward to working with him and our ranking member, the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), to ensure that this provision could 
possibly be contained in the final version of the fiscal year 2002 
Agricultural Appropriations Act.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. LEE. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to work with the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and the folks at USDA to provide 
some positive direction in this area. There is not a parent out there 
that is not concerned about good nutrition for children so I thank the 
gentlewoman for bringing this up and would look forward to again trying 
to direct USDA, somehow working with the gentlewoman on this issue of 
organic foods.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. LEE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Lee) that I fully support her efforts. I think she 
has raised an exceedingly important issue for our country. Without 
question, the nutrition of our children will yield the health of the 
future generation. The high use of sugar and high fats in the diets of 
our youth are creating an untenable, extremely unhealthy situation in 
this country that even the Surgeon General has recognized.
  One of the hardest challenges we face within the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture is to get the nutrition part of the agency, which has over 
half of its budget, to talk to the production side, which is the part 
the gentlewoman is talking about. That is producers, organic producers, 
small farmers, must be linked to our local school districts. This has 
been a tough job.
  I really support the gentlewoman on her efforts. Her goals of helping 
our children, I think, are commendable and also getting the Department 
of Agriculture to see its responsibilities toward our youth by working 
with farmers who can provide that fresh product in fruits and 
vegetables, with ethnic and racial sensitivity at the most local of 
levels, which is where we all live.
  So I look forward to working with the gentlewoman as we move the bill 
in the other body and hopefully we can strengthen this measure as we 
move forward. I thank the gentlewoman so very much for bringing up this 
very important issue today.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman and our ranking 
member for their colloquy and for their assistance and look forward to 
working with them. I come from an urban community. I look forward to 
working with our rural and suburban and urban legislators on this.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                 office of budget and program analysis

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Budget and Program 
     Analysis, including employment pursuant to the second 
     sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 
     U.S.C. 2225), of which not to exceed $5,000 is for employment 
     under 5 U.S.C. 3109, $7,041,000.

                Office of the Chief Information Officer

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief 
     Information Officer, including employment pursuant to the 
     second sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 
     (7 U.S.C. 2225), of which not to exceed $10,000 is for 
     employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109, $10,325,000.


                      common computing environment

       For necessary expenses to acquire a Common Computing 
     Environment for the Natural Resources Conservation Service, 
     the Farm and Foreign Agricultural Service and Rural 
     Development mission areas for information technology, 
     systems, and services, $59,369,000, to remain available until 
     expended, for the capital asset acquisition of shared 
     information technology systems, including services as 
     authorized by 7 U.S.C. 6915-16 and 40 U.S.C. 1421-28: 
     Provided, That obligation of these funds shall be consistent 
     with the Department of Agriculture Service Center 
     Modernization Plan of the county-based agencies, and shall be 
     with the concurrence of the Department's Chief Information 
     Officer.

                 Office of the Chief Financial Officer

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief Financial 
     Officer, including employment pursuant to the second sentence 
     of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C.

[[Page 12252]]

     2225), of which not to exceed $10,000 is for employment under 
     5 U.S.C. 3109, $5,384,000: Provided, That the Chief Financial 
     Officer shall actively market and expand cross-servicing 
     activities of the National Finance Center.

          Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Assistant Secretary for Administration to carry out the 
     programs funded by this Act, $652,000.

        Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For payment of space rental and related costs pursuant to 
     Public Law 92-313, including authorities pursuant to the 1984 
     delegation of authority from the Administrator of General 
     Services to the Department of Agriculture under 40 U.S.C. 
     486, for programs and activities of the Department which are 
     included in this Act, and for alterations and other actions 
     needed for this Department and its agencies to consolidate 
     unneeded space into configurations suitable for release to 
     the Administrator of General Services, and for the operation, 
     maintenance, improvement, and repair of Agriculture 
     buildings, $187,647,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That in the event an agency within the Department 
     should require modification of space needs, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture may transfer a share of an agency's appropriation 
     made available by this Act to this appropriation, or may 
     transfer a share of this appropriation to an agency's 
     appropriation to cover the costs of new or replacement space 
     for such agency, but such transfers shall not exceed 5 
     percent of the funds made available for space rental and 
     related costs to or from this account.

                     Hazardous Materials Management


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Department of Agriculture, to 
     comply with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq., and 
     the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6601 et 
     seq., $15,665,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That appropriations and funds available herein to 
     the Department for Hazardous Materials Management may be 
     transferred to any agency of the Department for its use in 
     meeting all requirements pursuant to the above Acts on 
     Federal and non-Federal lands.

                      Departmental Administration


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For Departmental Administration, $37,398,000, to provide 
     for necessary expenses for management support services to 
     offices of the Department and for general administration and 
     disaster management of the Department, repairs and 
     alterations, and other miscellaneous supplies and expenses 
     not otherwise provided for and necessary for the practical 
     and efficient work of the Department, including employment 
     pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a) of the 
     Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), of which not to exceed 
     $10,000 is for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided, That 
     this appropriation shall be reimbursed from applicable 
     appropriations in this Act for travel expenses incident to 
     the holding of hearings as required by 5 U.S.C. 551-558.


              outreach for socially disadvantaged farmers

       For grants and contracts pursuant to section 2501 of the 
     Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 
     U.S.C. 2279), $2,993,000, to remain available until expended.

     Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations to carry out 
     the programs funded by this Act, including programs involving 
     intergovernmental affairs and liaison within the executive 
     branch, $3,718,000: Provided, That these funds may be 
     transferred to agencies of the Department of Agriculture 
     funded by this Act to maintain personnel at the agency level: 
     Provided further, That no other funds appropriated to the 
     Department by this Act shall be available to the Department 
     for support of activities of congressional relations.

                        Office of Communications

       For necessary expenses to carry out services relating to 
     the coordination of programs involving public affairs, for 
     the dissemination of agricultural information, and the 
     coordination of information, work, and programs authorized by 
     Congress in the Department, $8,975,000, including employment 
     pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a) of the 
     Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), of which not to exceed 
     $10,000 shall be available for employment under 5 U.S.C. 
     3109, and not to exceed $2,000,000 may be used for farmers' 
     bulletins.

                    Office of the Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Inspector 
     General, including employment pursuant to the second sentence 
     of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), 
     and the Inspector General Act of 1978, $71,429,000, including 
     such sums as may be necessary for contracting and other 
     arrangements with public agencies and private persons 
     pursuant to section 6(a)(9) of the Inspector General Act of 
     1978, including not to exceed $50,000 for employment under 5 
     U.S.C. 3109; and including not to exceed $125,000 for certain 
     confidential operational expenses, including the payment of 
     informants, to be expended under the direction of the 
     Inspector General pursuant to Public Law 95-452 and section 
     1337 of Public Law 97-98.

                     Office of the General Counsel

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the General 
     Counsel, $32,937,000.

  Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics to 
     administer the laws enacted by the Congress for the Economic 
     Research Service, the National Agricultural Statistics 
     Service, the Agricultural Research Service, and the 
     Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, 
     $578,000.

                       Economic Research Service

       For necessary expenses of the Economic Research Service in 
     conducting economic research and analysis, as authorized by 
     the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627) 
     and other laws, $67,620,000: Provided, That this 
     appropriation shall be available for employment pursuant to 
     the second sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 
     1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225).

                National Agricultural Statistics Service

       For necessary expenses of the National Agricultural 
     Statistics Service in conducting statistical reporting and 
     service work, including crop and livestock estimates, 
     statistical coordination and improvements, marketing surveys, 
     and the Census of Agriculture, as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 
     1621-1627, Public Law 105-113, and other laws, $114,546,000, 
     of which up to $25,456,000 shall be available until expended 
     for the Census of Agriculture: Provided, That this 
     appropriation shall be available for employment pursuant to 
     the second sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 
     1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $40,000 shall be 
     available for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109.

                     Agricultural Research Service


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses to enable the Agricultural Research 
     Service to perform agricultural research and demonstration 
     relating to production, utilization, marketing, and 
     distribution (not otherwise provided for); home economics or 
     nutrition and consumer use including the acquisition, 
     preservation, and dissemination of agricultural information; 
     and for acquisition of lands by donation, exchange, or 
     purchase at a nominal cost not to exceed $100, and for land 
     exchanges where the lands exchanged shall be of equal value 
     or shall be equalized by a payment of money to the grantor 
     which shall not exceed 25 percent of the total value of the 
     land or interests transferred out of Federal ownership, 
     $971,365,000: Provided, That appropriations hereunder shall 
     be available for temporary employment pursuant to the second 
     sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 
     U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $115,000 shall be available 
     for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided further, That 
     appropriations hereunder shall be available for the operation 
     and maintenance of aircraft and the purchase of not to exceed 
     one for replacement only: Provided further, That 
     appropriations hereunder shall be available pursuant to 7 
     U.S.C. 2250 for the construction, alteration, and repair of 
     buildings and improvements, but unless otherwise provided, 
     the cost of constructing any one building shall not exceed 
     $375,000, except for headhouses or greenhouses which shall 
     each be limited to $1,200,000, and except for 10 buildings to 
     be constructed or improved at a cost not to exceed $750,000 
     each, and the cost of altering any one building during the 
     fiscal year shall not exceed 10 percent of the current 
     replacement value of the building or $375,000, whichever is 
     greater: Provided further, That the limitations on 
     alterations contained in this Act shall not apply to 
     modernization or replacement of existing facilities at 
     Beltsville, Maryland: Provided further, That appropriations 
     hereunder shall be available for granting easements at the 
     Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, including an 
     easement to the University of Maryland to construct the 
     Transgenic Animal Facility which upon completion shall be 
     accepted by the Secretary as a gift: Provided further, That 
     the foregoing limitations shall not apply to replacement of 
     buildings needed to carry out the Act of April 24, 1948 (21 
     U.S.C. 113a): Provided further, That funds may be received 
     from any State, other political subdivision, organization, or 
     individual for the purpose of establishing or operating any 
     research facility or research project of the Agricultural 
     Research Service, as authorized by law.
       None of the funds in the foregoing paragraph shall be 
     available to carry out research related to the production, 
     processing or marketing of tobacco or tobacco products.
       In fiscal year 2002, the agency is authorized to charge 
     fees, commensurate with the fair market value, for any 
     permit, easement, lease, or other special use authorization 
     for

[[Page 12253]]

     the occupancy or use of land and facilities (including land 
     and facilities at the Beltsville Agricultural Research 
     Center) issued by the agency, as authorized by law, and such 
     fees shall be credited to this account, and shall remain 
     available until expended for authorized purposes.


                Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Tierney

  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 24.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 24 offered by Mr. Tierney:
       In title I, under the heading ``AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH 
     SERVICE-salaries and expenses'', insert at the end the 
     following:

     SEC. __. REPORT REGARDING GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than one year after funds are 
     made available to carry out this section, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, acting through the National Academy of Sciences, 
     shall complete and transmit to Congress a report that 
     includes recommendations for the following:
       (1) Data and tests.--The type of data and tests that are 
     needed to sufficiently assess and evaluate human health risks 
     from the consumption of genetically engineered foods.
       (2) Monitoring system.--The type of Federal monitoring 
     system that should be created to assess any future human 
     health consequences from long-term consumption of genetically 
     engineered foods.
       (3) Regulations.--A Federal regulatory structure to approve 
     genetically engineered foods that are safe for human 
     consumption.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary of Agriculture $500,000 
     to carry out this section.

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, there is probably no more important 
responsibility for a government than to protect the well-being of its 
citizens. For this reason, it is essential that we properly assess the 
best way to ensure the health safety of genetically engineered foods.
  This amendment presented at the desk seeks a National Academy of 
Sciences study to examine three important health-related aspects of 
genetically engineered foods. One, whether or not the tests being 
performed on genetically engineered foods really ensure their health 
safety and whether or not they are adequate and relevant; two, what 
type of monitoring system is needed to assess future health 
consequences from genetically engineered foods; and, lastly, what type 
of regulatory structure should be in place to approve genetically 
engineered foods for humans to eat.
  In the year 2000, more than 100 million acres of land around the 
world were planted with genetically engineered crops. This is 25 times 
as much as was planted just 4 years before. In fact, genetically 
engineered food crops planted and marketed by United States farmers 
include 45 kinds of corn, canola, tomatoes, potatoes, soybeans, and 
sunflowers.
  Today, genetically engineered ingredients are found in virtually all 
of our foods that are sold on supermarket shelves; and that includes 
baby foods, potato chips, soda, and vegetables.
  Despite the growing presence of genetically engineered foods and 
despite industry assertions that the foods are safe to eat, the public 
remains unconvinced. The discovery last year of genetically engineered 
Starlink corn that was not approved for humans to eat in taco shells 
was a wake-up call. Now that the cat is out of the bag, Starlink's 
manufacturers want the Environmental Protection Agency to declare 
Starlink safe for human consumption.
  Mr. Chairman, that is no way to protect our health. As the Centers 
for Disease Control noted earlier this month, we need to properly 
evaluate genetically engineered foods before they get into the food 
supply. In my home State of Massachusetts, the State legislature is 
considering legislation that would impose a 5-year moratorium on the 
growing of genetically engineered foods. Similar legislation is pending 
in New York. In fact, according to the Grocery Manufacturers of 
America, as of March this year there were eight bills in six States 
that would ban or put a moratorium on the planting of genetically 
engineered crops.
  We cannot afford to bury our heads in the sand and let the public's 
concerns continue to grow. We need to develop a standard of tests that 
can be applied to all genetically engineered food to ensure that it is 
safe for our children and ourselves to eat.

                              {time}  1530

  The Food and Drug Administration does not conduct its own testing of 
genetically engineered products. Instead, the Food and Drug 
Administration provides guidelines and then relies upon the companies 
who produce genetically engineered products to test their safety. 
Companies voluntarily share the results of the tests on genetically 
engineered products with the Food and Drug Administration.
  Under new rules proposed on January 17 by the last administration, 
companies in the future will have to give 120 days' notice to the Food 
and Drug Administration before producing new genetically engineered 
products on the market. But even with these new rules, it remains the 
responsibility of the companies that create the market and market these 
products to test for their safety. We need to be sure that these 
companies are doing the right tests in the right way.
  In addition to ensuring that testing methods are adequate, we need to 
ensure that our regulatory system is also sufficient to protect our 
health. The National Academy of Sciences has said, ``A solid regulatory 
system and scientific base are important for acceptance and safe 
adoption of agricultural biotechnology, as well as for protecting the 
environment and public health.''
  Our current regulatory system, in which the Food and Drug 
Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the United 
States Department of Agriculture share jurisdiction over genetically 
engineered food, may not be the best way to ensure the health and 
safety of the foods we eat. We need to be certain that testing, 
regulation and monitoring of genetically engineered foods over the long 
term are effective and appropriate in determining the potential health 
effects of eating genetically engineered foods.
  Even the center for Science in the Public Interest, an organization 
devoted to improving the safety and nutritional quality of our food 
supply, has said that the National Academy of Sciences study would 
provide regulators with a scientific road map of tests to ensure the 
safety of genetically engineered foods so the consumers would feel 
secure when they consume them and farmers would be confident that they 
have a market for their products.
  I think that is what we are looking for, Mr. Chairman. We want 
consumers to feel secure when they eat, and we want farmers to be 
confident when they market their products. We should heed the words 
from that study, and we should fund the study proposed in this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his attention.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) insist upon 
his point of order?
  Mr. BONILLA. I continue to reserve my point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman continues to insist on his point of 
order.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Tierney amendment. I think the 
gentleman from Massachusetts raises an excellent point about the need 
for further study. The truth is that in 1999, over 100 million acres of 
genetically engineered crops were planted in this country, and the 
consumption of genetically engineered crops is happening. Yet we really 
do not have much information about the effects; we really do not know 
much about how this might have some implications for public health. 
That is why many States are starting to look at this quite critically, 
and the issues that are raised here certainly merit more study.
  I think the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) should be 
congratulated for raising this issue and for asking for a more thorough 
review of this. I can say that I think most people

[[Page 12254]]

in this country would support such a call. People are concerned about 
the food they eat, and they are certainly concerned about any new 
technology which may, in one way or another, change the functional 
characteristics of the food, as well as the properties of the food and 
the way in which the food interacts in the human medium.
  So I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) for 
his work.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the chairman would just 
know, this is the second year we have presented this motion; and I 
think it is a pretty balanced motion.
  We are seeking here to both give consumers confidence, that the 
gentleman from Ohio points out very clearly is a very big concern for 
people; but we also are trying to make sure that farmers know that they 
can go to the market with confidence. It is going to do us no good in 
terms of the economics of our society to have a bunch of farmers that 
are creating a product in which the consumers have no confidence, so 
there is no market there.
  This particular amendment was a hope to strike the point where we get 
the National Academy of Science to determine for us what is the best 
testing regime, what is the best way to monitor this as it goes 
through, and what is the best way to make sure that we have a 
regulatory structure to give the confidence at both of those levels.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is 
correct on that. As a matter of fact, American farmers are quite 
concerned about the impact of genetically engineered products on their 
markets, because if their markets begin to dry up, as they have in some 
countries, then American farmers are not able to sell what we know is 
the best agriculture in the world, here from America. But if the 
products are genetically engineered, if there has not been much study 
and there is concern about quality, safety and other things, then our 
farmers can endure economic loss.
  So I want to again thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Tierney) for raising this issue, and I hope that the gentleman would 
respectfully consider his amendment as being in order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) still 
insist on his point of order?
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman continues to reserve his point of order.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlemen for their interest in providing 
wholesome food. It is important. I would like to point out, however, 
that regarding the Starlink corn question, it has now been certified 
that there has been no ill effects to humans. That is good news.
  I would like to also point out that, because we have been cross-
breeding for 1,000 years, every food item that we buy in a store, 
except a couple varieties of fish, have been genetically modified. This 
has happened simply because farmers have been looking for ways to 
improve the quality and cost of food.
  I think it is very important that we continue our scientific effort 
with this new technology of genetic modification. We must also consider 
the importance of its tremendous potential in developing better food 
products and more healthy products. We can develop food products that 
have vaccines. Also, especially in the developing countries of this 
world, we now have the potential of developing the kind of plants and 
seeds that can grow in those arid soils or those other types of 
climatic conditions where they could not grow food before. So we need 
to proceed in our scientific research.
  Just a point before I yield for a comment. We have the best 
regulatory system in the world in terms of our oversight of genetically 
engineered products. Between the United States Department of 
Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental 
Protection Agency, we now have the ability to review, regulate and test 
these products that are coming to market to assure safety.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. TIERNEY. I might respectfully just disagree with the gentleman on 
the last point, as I think the National Academy of Science does, when 
they indicated that they think this idea of having three different 
agencies with overlapping and different responsibilities would be 
better served to look at what other kind of regulatory structure we 
could put in place that would give us more confidence.
  Also I want to draw a point on the study the gentleman talked about 
on Starlink. One, I think we want that kind of information before the 
problem arises, and that is partly why I filed this bill; and, 
secondly, there is still some controversy swirling around the study the 
gentleman talked about and the results of it.
  I suspect from the gentleman's comments and the importance he puts on 
genetically engineered foods that he favors my bill, which would be a 
confidence building measure, if we set up the right kinds of test that 
people could have confidence in, if we set up the right kind of 
monitoring system that people would know would be something we could 
rely on, and if we had the right kind of regulatory structure, it would 
benefit people that take the gentleman's position, as well as people 
that might be skeptical or more on that.
  The idea is to follow the advice of the National Academy and do just 
that. Let them give us the advice through this study that I propose, to 
tell us what would be the best testing regime, how would you monitor 
it, and how would you regulate it.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think it 
is important, and I hope everyone agrees, that we have to depend on 
scientific information and testing, and not emotions, to be the basis 
of the decisions we make.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, at this point in time I understand the 
gentleman's objections on technical matters on this, and I ask 
unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                        buildings and facilities

       For acquisition of land, construction, repair, improvement, 
     extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or 
     facilities as necessary to carry out the agricultural 
     research programs of the Department of Agriculture, where not 
     otherwise provided, $78,862,000, to remain available until 
     expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b): Provided, That funds may be 
     received from any State, other political subdivision, 
     organization, or individual for the purpose of establishing 
     any research facility of the Agricultural Research Service, 
     as authorized by law.

      Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service


                   research and education activities

       For payments to agricultural experiment stations, for 
     cooperative forestry and other research, for facilities, and 
     for other expenses, $507,452,000, as follows: to carry out 
     the provisions of the Hatch Act (7 U.S.C. 361a-i), 
     $180,148,000; for grants for cooperative forestry research 
     (16 U.S.C. 582a-a7), $21,884,000; for payments to the 1890 
     land-grant colleges, including Tuskegee University (7 U.S.C. 
     3222), $32,604,000, of which $998,000 shall be made available 
     to West Virginia State College in Institute, West Virginia; 
     for special grants for agricultural research (7 U.S.C. 
     450i(c)), $82,409,000; for special grants for agricultural 
     research on improved pest control (7 U.S.C. 450i(c)), 
     $15,721,000; for competitive research grants (7 U.S.C. 
     450i(b)), $105,767,000; for the support of animal health and 
     disease programs (7 U.S.C. 3195), $5,098,000; for 
     supplemental and alternative crops and products (7 U.S.C. 
     3319d), $950,000; for grants for research pursuant to the 
     Critical Agricultural Materials Act of 1984 (7 U.S.C. 178) 
     and section 1472 of the Food and Agriculture Act of 1977 (7 
     U.S.C. 3318), $639,000, to remain available until expended; 
     for the 1994 research program (7 U.S.C. 301 note), $998,000, 
     to remain available until expended; for higher education 
     graduate fellowship grants (7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(6)), $2,993,000, 
     to remain available until expended

[[Page 12255]]

     (7 U.S.C. 2209b); for higher education challenge grants (7 
     U.S.C. 3152(b)(1)), $4,340,000; for a higher education 
     multicultural scholars program (7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(5)), 
     $998,000, to remain available until expended (7 U.S.C. 
     2209b); for an education grants program for Hispanic-serving 
     Institutions (7 U.S.C. 3241), $3,492,000; for a program of 
     noncompetitive grants, to be awarded on an equal basis, to 
     Alaska Native-serving and Native Hawaiian-serving 
     Institutions to carry out higher education programs (7 U.S.C. 
     3242), $2,993,000; for a secondary agriculture education 
     program and 2-year post-secondary education (7 U.S.C. 
     3152(h)), $1,000,000; for aquaculture grants (7 U.S.C. 3322), 
     $3,991,000; for sustainable agriculture research and 
     education (7 U.S.C. 5811), $12,000,000; for a program of 
     capacity building grants (7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(4)) to colleges 
     eligible to receive funds under the Act of August 30, 1890 (7 
     U.S.C. 321-326 and 328), including Tuskegee University, 
     $9,479,000, to remain available until expended (7 U.S.C. 
     2209b); for payments to the 1994 Institutions pursuant to 
     section 534(a)(1) of Public Law 103-382, $1,549,000; and for 
     necessary expenses of Research and Education Activities, of 
     which not to exceed $100,000 shall be for employment under 5 
     U.S.C. 3109, $18,399,000.


           Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan

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

       Amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan:
       In title I under the heading ``Cooperative State Research, 
     Education, and Extension Service''-``research and education 
     activities'' insert after the dollar amount relating to 
     ``competitive research grants (7 U.S.C. 450i(b))'' the 
     following: ``, including grants for authorized competitive 
     research programs regarding enhancement of the nitrogen-
     fixing ability and efficiency of plants''.

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, briefly, what this amendment 
does is to include research to increase the efficiency of nitrogen 
fixation from plants.
  We have a situation where the nitrogen fertilizer of this country is 
made out of natural gas. It is estimated that 3 to 6 percent of the 
natural gas produced in the United States is used to produce nitrogen. 
Farmers use that nitrogen fertilizer and therefore natural gas. If 
plants could do a better job of fixing ``N'' in the soil, we would save 
energy and reduce the cost to farmers.
  This simply says let us include in our research effort research into 
the fixation of nitrogen. We now have plants that can put nitrogen back 
into the soil. We have started on this research. We need to move ahead. 
It is part of the whole renewable energy effort that we need to 
consider.
  I thank the chairman and ranking member for supporting the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment today that would address the 
challenge of increased farm input costs due to continued high energy 
prices. Specifically, the amendment would direct the Cooperative State 
Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) Competitive Grants 
Program, better known as the National Research Initiative, to include 
grants for research into improving nitrogen-fixation ability of crop 
plants.
  As we are aware, higher energy costs over the last two crop years 
have further stressed farmers facing an extended period of low 
commodity prices. From 1999 to 2000, U.S. producers incurred an 
additional $2.4 billion in fuel costs. In the 2001 crop year, energy 
costs are expected to increase an additional $1.5 billion for farmers. 
As a result, agricultural bottom lines continue to suffer, and many 
farmers have gone out of business, despite increasing government 
support.
  While we work to accomplish the larger goals set forth in the 
President's comprehensive energy plan, I think we should also be sure 
that no stone is left uncovered with respect to finding new ways to 
improve our energy usage and consumption. One area where I believe 
there is great potential for improvements is the reduction of 
fertilizer input costs on farms through greater nitrogen fixation 
ability.
  In the United States, nitrogen fertilizer production and use requires 
3 to 6 percent of the country's natural gas production. Natural gas 
prices and nitrogen fertilizer prices are closely related, with over 70 
percent of the cost of N fertilizer attributable to natural gas. The 
tripling of natural gas prices last winter highlights this 
relationship, as nitrogen fertilizer costs skyrocketed over 350 
percent. This huge increase obviously left farmers scrambling to modify 
planting decisions and find other ways to cut fertilizer input costs.
  One way that we can do this is by developing plants that put nitrogen 
in the soil. For example, in a typical soybean-corn rotation--if we can 
develop new varieties of soybeans that fix greater amounts of nitrogen, 
more residual nitrogen would remain for the following corn crop, 
lessening the amount of nitrogen fertilizer that would need to be 
purchased by the producer.
  Recent research indicates that significant potential for improvements 
exist in this area, but currently, a very limited amount of research is 
being done on these issues. My amendment would ensure that USDA's 
National Research Initiative Competitive Research Grants support 
research into enhancing the nitrogen fixing ability and efficiency of 
plants.
  I believe that making this type of agricultural research a priority 
will pay great and lasting dividends to farmers facing continued 
challenges of high energy input costs, and I urge the members to 
support my amendment.
  Note: Currently, USDA-ARS is spending $3.05 million in FY '01 to fund 
N-fixing projects. USDA-CSREES/NRI is also funding N-fixing projects, 
but have not reported back the total amount being spent.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, we support the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today on behalf of all the farmers 
and ranchers in Utah and other western States who are dealing with the 
devastating outbreaks of Mormon Crickets and grasshoppers. This 
outbreak, now under declaration of emergency by the Governor of Utah, 
is considered to be the worst in over 60 years and is spreading over 
1.5 million acres.
  These insects, which breed undisturbed and untreated on the vast 
acres of BLM and Forest Service land and then spread to neighboring 
State and private land, are devouring the crops and rangeland to the 
tune of what is expected to be at least $25 million worth of damage.
  However, this is not all. In Oak City, Utah, for example, the mayor 
informs me that the crickets have now inundated the community water 
system at the sealed collection boxes and tanks. They are now moving 
into towns, where people are attempting to burn their fruit trees to 
keep them away from their homes, and children are kept indoors.
  Line-item funding has been eliminated, and formerly available funds 
from previous years have all been expended in battling these insects. 
The plight of these lands has become such a critical concern, that I 
have asked our Subcommittee on Public Lands to hold oversight hearings 
on this issue next month. Timely and adequate funding has been a 
continual issue for us.
  While I understand there are not any line-item funds for Mormon 
Cricket and grasshopper treatment in this bill as it stands today, I 
understand the chairman is aware of the problem we are facing and has 
committed to ensure there is sufficient APHIS funds for the 2002 fiscal 
year specific to Mormon Cricket and grasshopper treatment, as well as 
working with us to ensure the Secretary addresses our emergency 
problems with contingency funds.
  I thank the chairman and look forward to working with him and 
obtaining emergency funds.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding. I 
appreciate the hard work that the gentleman has undertaken on this 
issue. I know it is a very serious problem.
  The committee and this chairman are aware of the emergency conditions 
that exist in Utah and throughout the Great Basin region caused by the 
Mormon Crickets. The gentleman from Utah has my commitment to ensure 
that proper funding for this problem is obtained in a timely manner 
this year and that specific funding for addressing the Mormon Cricket 
and grasshopper

[[Page 12256]]

problem is identified to meet future needs in the FY 2002 bill.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman 
and appreciate his help on this critical matter and look forward to 
addressing this issue in conference and with the Secretary's help.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of ensuring that all warm-blooded 
animals used in research receive the protection for which the Animal 
Welfare Act entitles them, and therefore oppose the language that has 
been included in the bill before us which will continue to deny those 
protections to those species that constitute the majority of the 
animals used in research.
  In 1970, the Congress specifically amended the Animal Welfare Act to 
provide for the protections of all warm-blooded animals used in 
experiments. Since then, however, the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
has unfairly and illegally denied those modest safeguards to a majority 
of the research animals, over 20 million birds, rats, and mice used 
each year.
  When Congress amended the law, we certainly did not intend to exclude 
95 percent of the animals used in research. This is confirmed by our 
esteemed former colleague from the other body, Senator Bob Dole, who, 
along with my great friend, the late Congressman George Brown, further 
improved the treatment of lab animals in 1985.

                              {time}  1545

  I wish to enter into the Record the letter from Senator Dole on this 
subject.
  To correct this 30-year-old wrong, USDA committed the beginning of 
the rulemaking process to extend the Animal Welfare Act regulations to 
these animals. I am disappointed that the Agriculture Appropriations 
Subcommittee chose to add language that prohibits USDA from going 
forward with this rulemaking which is long overdue. The scientific 
community must be held accountable to the public for its treatment of 
animals. The American public expects animal research to be conducted as 
humanely as possible. We in Congress cannot assure them that if we not 
only allow, but also encourage, USDA to exclude the majority of 
research animals from this law's protection.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge that this language be stricken in the conference 
committee between the House and the Senate.
  The letter referred to previously follows:

                                               Washington, DC,

                                                   March 19, 2001.
     John McArdle,
     Director, Alternatives Research and Development Foundation, 
         Eden Prairie, MN.
       Dear Dr. McArdle: Thank you for your letter of March 1st 
     regarding the current status of laboratory animals under the 
     Animal Welfare Act (AWA).
       I support the use of animals in research but firmly believe 
     that there is a responsibility incumbent upon researchers to 
     provide basic protections to the animals they use. It is 
     obvious that good animal care is essential to ensuring good 
     quality research. Through good animal treatment and 
     minimizing painful tests, biomedical research gains in both 
     accuracy and humanity.
       As someone deeply involved with the process of revising and 
     expanding the provisions of the AWA, I assure you that the 
     AWA was meant to include birds, mice, and rats. When Congress 
     stated that the AWA applied to ``all warm-blooded animals,'' 
     we certainly did not intend to exclude 95 percent of the 
     animals used in biomedical research laboratories. Although 
     the National Institutes of Health and the Association for 
     Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care 
     International provide oversight for some of the birds, mice, 
     and rats used for experimentation, many research institutions 
     fall outside their purview. With AWA regulations soon 
     extended to these animals, I believe USDA, with its 
     substantial experience in enforcement, is best suited to 
     ensuring humane care for all laboratory animals. Moreover, 
     neither NIH's policy nor voluntary accreditation includes 
     legal consequences for failure to perform. The Animal Welfare 
     Act does. That is the heart of the law.
       I am aware of efforts by opponents of animal welfare to 
     prevent coverage of birds, mice, and rats as detrimental to 
     research. This notion is preposterous. A similar strategy was 
     employed by opponents of my 1985 amendments to the Act. I am 
     happy to observe that none of their predications about the 
     dire consequences for research ever materialized.
       Indeed, those amendments have facilitated significant 
     improvements in laboratory animal care and use, which in turn 
     have benefited research. In fact, I understand that those 
     members of the research community best informed about 
     laboratory animals support the inclusion of birds, mice, and 
     rats. From their work on the front lines, they recognize, as 
     you and I do, that uniform protections not only are humane, 
     but also ensure consistent experimental results and level the 
     playing field in vital scientific research. Those who oppose 
     USDA's efforts to fulfill its court settlement with your 
     organization, I believe, are overlooking the long-term 
     benefits to crafting better science.
       We owe much to laboratory animals--that were true in 1985 
     and is truer today. I would hope that the Bush Administration 
     and Members of the present Congress, some of whom stood with 
     me in 1985 in advancing my amendments, will recognize that 
     all animals used in experimentation deserve the benefit of 
     the modest requirements of the Animal Welfare Act. I would 
     urge them to allow USDA to achieve this end by pursuing a 
     full and fair rulemaking as provided in the settlement 
     agreement.
       I wish you the best of luck not only in defending the 
     Animal Welfare Act, but also in your ongoing efforts to 
     advance humane methods of biomedical research.
       Let me add that I am writing to you as a volunteer. I am 
     not being paid by any persons or group for stating my views.
           Sincerely,
                                                         Bob Dole.

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       None of the funds in the foregoing paragraph shall be 
     available to carry out research related to the production, 
     processing or marketing of tobacco or tobacco products: 
     Provided, That this paragraph shall not apply to research on 
     the medical, biotechnological, food, and industrial uses of 
     tobacco.


              native american institutions endowment fund

       For the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund 
     authorized by Public Law 103-382 (7 U.S.C. 301 note), 
     $7,100,000.


                          extension activities

       For payments to States, the District of Columbia, Puerto 
     Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, Micronesia, Northern 
     Marianas, and American Samoa, $436,029,000, as follows: 
     payments for cooperative extension work under the Smith-Lever 
     Act, to be distributed under sections 3(b) and 3(c) of said 
     Act, and under section 208(c) of Public Law 93-471, for 
     retirement and employees' compensation costs for extension 
     agents and for costs of penalty mail for cooperative 
     extension agents and State extension directors, $275,940,000; 
     payments for extension work at the 1994 Institutions under 
     the Smith-Lever Act (7 U.S.C. 343(b)(3)), $3,273,000; 
     payments for the nutrition and family education program for 
     low-income areas under section 3(d) of the Act, $58,566,000; 
     payments for the pest management program under section 3(d) 
     of the Act, $10,759,000; payments for the farm safety program 
     under section 3(d) of the Act, $5,800,000; payments to 
     upgrade research, extension, and teaching facilities at the 
     1890 land-grant colleges, including Tuskegee University, as 
     authorized by section 1447 of Public Law 95-113 (7 U.S.C. 
     3222b), $12,173,000, to remain available until expended; 
     payments for the rural development centers under section 3(d) 
     of the Act, $906,000; payments for youth-at-risk programs 
     under section 3(d) of the Act, $8,481,000; for youth farm 
     safety education and certification extension grants, to be 
     awarded competitively under section 3(d) of the Act, 
     $499,000; payments for carrying out the provisions of the 
     Renewable Resources Extension Act of 1978, $3,185,000; 
     payments for Indian reservation agents under section 3(d) of 
     the Act, $1,996,000; payments for sustainable agriculture 
     programs under section 3(d) of the Act, $5,000,000; payments 
     for rural health and safety education as authorized by 
     section 2390 of Public Law 101-624 (7 U.S.C. 2661 note, 
     2662), $2,622,000; payments for cooperative extension work by 
     the colleges receiving the benefits of the second Morrill Act 
     (7 U.S.C. 321-326 and 328) and Tuskegee University, 
     $28,181,000, of which $998,000 shall be made available to 
     West Virginia State College in Institute, West Virginia; and 
     for Federal administration and coordination including 
     administration of the Smith-Lever Act, and the Act of 
     September 29, 1977 (7 U.S.C. 341-349), and section 1361(c) of 
     the Act of October 3, 1980 (7 U.S.C. 301 note), and to 
     coordinate and provide program leadership for the extension 
     work of the Department and the several States and insular 
     possessions, $18,648,000: Provided, That funds hereby 
     appropriated pursuant to section 3(c) of the Act of June 26, 
     1953, and section 506 of the Act of June 23, 1972, shall not 
     be paid to any State, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, 
     Guam, or the Virgin Islands, Micronesia, Northern Marianas, 
     and American

[[Page 12257]]

     Samoa prior to availability of an equal sum from non-Federal 
     sources for expenditure during the current fiscal year.


                         integrated activities

       For the integrated research, education, and extension 
     competitive grants programs, including necessary 
     administrative expenses, as authorized under section 406 of 
     the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform 
     Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7626), $43,355,000, as follows: 
     payments for the water quality program, $12,971,000; payments 
     for the food safety program, $14,967,000; payments for the 
     national agriculture pesticide impact assessment program, 
     $4,531,000; payments for the Food Quality Protection Act risk 
     mitigation program for major food crop systems, $4,889,000; 
     payments for the crops affected by Food Quality Protection 
     Act implementation, $1,497,000; payments for the methyl 
     bromide transition program, $2,500,000; and payments for the 
     organic transition program, $2,000,000.

  Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs to 
     administer programs under the laws enacted by the Congress 
     for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; the 
     Agricultural Marketing Service; and the Grain Inspection, 
     Packers and Stockyards Administration; $660,000.

               Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service


                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, including those 
     pursuant to the Act of February 28, 1947 (21 U.S.C. 114b-c), 
     necessary to prevent, control, and eradicate pests and plant 
     and animal diseases; to carry out inspection, quarantine, and 
     regulatory activities; to discharge the authorities of the 
     Secretary of Agriculture under the Acts of March 2, 1931 (46 
     Stat. 1468) and December 22, 1987 (101 Stat. 1329-1331) (7 
     U.S.C. 426-426c); and to protect the environment, as 
     authorized by law, $587,386,000, of which $4,096,000 shall be 
     available for the control of outbreaks of insects, plant 
     diseases, animal diseases and for control of pest animals and 
     birds to the extent necessary to meet emergency conditions: 
     Provided, That no funds shall be used to formulate or 
     administer a brucellosis eradication program for the current 
     fiscal year that does not require minimum matching by the 
     States of at least 40 percent: Provided further, That this 
     appropriation shall be available for field employment 
     pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a) of the 
     Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed 
     $40,000 shall be available for employment under 5 U.S.C. 
     3109: Provided further, That this appropriation shall be 
     available for the operation and maintenance of aircraft and 
     the purchase of not to exceed four, of which two shall be for 
     replacement only: Provided further, That, in addition, in 
     emergencies which threaten any segment of the agricultural 
     production industry of this country, the Secretary may 
     transfer from other appropriations or funds available to the 
     agencies or corporations of the Department such sums as may 
     be deemed necessary, to be available only in such emergencies 
     for the arrest and eradication of contagious or infectious 
     disease or pests of animals, poultry, or plants, and for 
     expenses in accordance with the Act of February 28, 1947, and 
     section 102 of the Act of September 21, 1944, and any 
     unexpended balances of funds transferred for such emergency 
     purposes in the preceding fiscal year shall be merged with 
     such transferred amounts: Provided further, That 
     appropriations hereunder shall be available pursuant to law 
     (7 U.S.C. 2250) for the repair and alteration of leased 
     buildings and improvements, but unless otherwise provided the 
     cost of altering any one building during the fiscal year 
     shall not exceed 10 percent of the current replacement value 
     of the building.
       In fiscal year 2002 the agency is authorized to collect 
     fees to cover the total costs of providing technical 
     assistance, goods, or services requested by States, other 
     political subdivisions, domestic and international 
     organizations, foreign governments, or individuals, provided 
     that such fees are structured such that any entity's 
     liability for such fees is reasonably based on the technical 
     assistance, goods, or services provided to the entity by the 
     agency, and such fees shall be credited to this account, to 
     remain available until expended, without further 
     appropriation, for providing such assistance, goods, or 
     services.
       Of the total amount available under this heading in fiscal 
     year 2002, $84,813,000 shall be derived from user fees 
     deposited in the Agricultural Quarantine Inspection User Fee 
     Account.


                        buildings and facilities

       For plans, construction, repair, preventive maintenance, 
     environmental support, improvement, extension, alteration, 
     and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities, as authorized 
     by 7 U.S.C. 2250, and acquisition of land as authorized by 7 
     U.S.C. 428a, $7,189,000, to remain available until expended.

                     Agricultural Marketing Service


                           marketing services

       For necessary expenses to carry out services related to 
     consumer protection, agricultural marketing and distribution, 
     transportation, and regulatory programs, as authorized by 
     law, and for administration and coordination of payments to 
     States, including field employment pursuant to the second 
     sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 
     U.S.C. 2225) and not to exceed $90,000 for employment under 5 
     U.S.C. 3109, $71,774,000, including funds for the wholesale 
     market development program for the design and development of 
     wholesale and farmer market facilities for the major 
     metropolitan areas of the country: Provided, That this 
     appropriation shall be available pursuant to law (7 U.S.C. 
     2250) for the alteration and repair of buildings and 
     improvements, but the cost of altering any one building 
     during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10 percent of the 
     current replacement value of the building.
       Fees may be collected for the cost of standardization 
     activities, as established by regulation pursuant to law (31 
     U.S.C. 9701).


                 limitation on administrative expenses

       Not to exceed $60,596,000 (from fees collected) shall be 
     obligated during the current fiscal year for administrative 
     expenses: Provided, That if crop size is understated and/or 
     other uncontrollable events occur, the agency may exceed this 
     limitation by up to 10 percent with notification to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.


    funds for strengthening markets, income, and supply (section 32)

                     (including transfers of funds)

       Funds available under section 32 of the Act of August 24, 
     1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c), shall be used only for commodity 
     program expenses as authorized therein, and other related 
     operating expenses, except for: (1) transfers to the 
     Department of Commerce as authorized by the Fish and Wildlife 
     Act of August 8, 1956; (2) transfers otherwise provided in 
     this Act; and (3) not more than $13,995,000 for formulation 
     and administration of marketing agreements and orders 
     pursuant to the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 
     and the Agricultural Act of 1961.


                   payments to states and possessions

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

        Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the 
     United States Grain Standards Act, for the administration of 
     the Packers and Stockyards Act, for certifying procedures 
     used to protect purchasers of farm products, and the 
     standardization activities related to grain under the 
     Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, including field 
     employment pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a) 
     of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed 
     $25,000 for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109, $33,117,000: 
     Provided, That this appropriation shall be available pursuant 
     to law (7 U.S.C. 2250) for the alteration and repair of 
     buildings and improvements, but the cost of altering any one 
     building during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10 percent 
     of the current replacement value of the building.


                    inspection and weighing services

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

             Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Food Safety to administer the laws 
     enacted by the Congress for the Food Safety and Inspection 
     Service, $481,000.

  Mr. BONILLA (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the remainder of the bill through page 25, line 1, be 
considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any 
point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                   Food Safety and Inspection Service

       For necessary expenses to carry out services authorized by 
     the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products 
     Inspection Act, and the Egg Products Inspection Act, 
     including not to exceed $50,000 for representation allowances 
     and for expenses pursuant to section 8 of the Act approved 
     August 3, 1956 (7 U.S.C. 1766), $720,652,000, and in 
     addition, $1,000,000 may be credited to this account from 
     fees collected for the cost of laboratory accreditation as 
     authorized by section 1017 of Public Law 102-237: Provided, 
     That this appropriation shall be available for

[[Page 12258]]

     field employment pursuant to the second sentence of section 
     706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to 
     exceed $75,000 shall be available for employment under 5 
     U.S.C. 3109: Provided further, That this appropriation shall 
     be available pursuant to law (7 U.S.C. 2250) for the 
     alteration and repair of buildings and improvements, but the 
     cost of altering any one building during the fiscal year 
     shall not exceed 10 percent of the current replacement value 
     of the building.


                   Amendment Offered by Ms. De Lauro

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

       Amendment offered by Ms. DeLauro:
       In title I, in the item relating to ``Food Safety and 
     Inspection Service'', insert at the end the following:
       In addition, for the Food Safety and Inspection Service to 
     improve food safety and reduce the incidence of foodborne 
     illnesses, $50,000,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985: Provided further, That 
     such amount shall be available only to the extent that an 
     official budget request, that includes designation of the 
     entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement as 
     defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985, is transmitted by the President to the Congress.
       In title VI, in the item relating to ``Food and Drug 
     Administration--salaries and expenses'', insert at the end 
     the following:
       In addition, for the Food and Drug Administration to 
     improve food safety and reduce the incidence of foodborne 
     illnesses, $163,000,000: Provided, That such amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985: Provided further, That 
     such amount shall be available only to the extent that an 
     official budget request, that includes designation of the 
     entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement as 
     defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985, is transmitted by the President to the Congress.

  Ms. DeLAURO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment be limited to 30 minutes and that the time be equally 
divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time will be equally divided between the proponent 
of the amendment, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), and a 
Member opposed.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) is 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment provides emergency funds to address the 
food safety crisis that faces our Nation today. Today more Americans 
are getting sick from the food that they eat. Outbreaks of food 
sickness are expected to go up by as much as 15 percent over the next 
10 years. The outbreaks are reported across the spectrum: fish, eggs, 
beef and lettuce, to name a few. The statistics are staggering. Five 
thousand Americans die every year from food-borne illness, and 76 
million get ill and 325 are hospitalized. Medical expenses and lost 
productivity cost us every year $5.6 billion and $9.4 billion 
respectively.
  Two days ago the Excel Corporation recalled 190,000 pounds of ground 
beef and pork because of possible contamination by deadly E. coli. Sara 
Lee pled guilty to selling tainted meat linked to a nationwide outbreak 
of listeriosis in 1998, and 15 people were killed.
  Grocery stores are afraid that their food is unsafe. Slaughterhouses 
are killing cattle before the animals are unconscious because there are 
not enough inspectors to ensure that the law is enforced.
  George Grob, Deputy Director and Inspector General of Health and 
Human Services states that, and I quote, ``Any reasonable person would 
worry about it. If the inspection process worked really well, there 
would be fewer recalls.''
  To address the problem I asked the committee to allow an amendment 
that would provide a total of $213 million in emergency funds, $90 
million for more inspections of imported foods, $73 million for 
additional inspections of domestic food products, and $50 million for 
the Food Safety Inspection Service to ensure that it has the resources 
that it needs to implement food safety procedures and regulations.
  The Food and Drug Administration inspects all food except meat, 
poultry and eggs. This food, which includes fruit juices, vegetables, 
cheeses, seafood, is the source of 85 percent of food poisoning in this 
country. In the United States alone, there are 30,000 companies that 
produce these food items, and last year recalls of FDA-regulated 
products rose to 315, the most since the 1980s and 36 percent above 
average.
  Mr. Chairman, FDA inspects less than 1 percent of imported food, and 
that market has expanded from 2.7 million items to 4.1 million items in 
just 3 years. In the domestic market, the FDA does not inspect all 
high-risk firms more than once a year; other firms are visited only 
once in 7 years. The FDA employs 400 people to inspect domestic food 
and recall. There are 30,000 food plants to look into and less than 120 
people to inspect imported food. According to their own testimony, the 
FDA says to conduct annual inspections of every domestic food firm, it 
would need 3,400 employees. To increase its inspection of imported food 
from 1 percent to 10 percent would require 1,600 employees.
  The FDA needs resources in order to begin to meet its goal, and that 
is what this amendment does, is to begin the process of increasing the 
number of inspectors in order to look at imported foods and take the 1 
percent of the inspections to 10 percent, and it would add 630 
inspectors to guarantee that all high-risk firms are inspected twice a 
year, all other firms every 2 years, and all food warehouses every 3 
years.
  The last part of the amendment says, let us have $50 million for the 
Food Safety Inspection Service to allow it to reach its goal of looking 
at reducing food-borne illnesses that are carried by meat and poultry 
by 25 percent.
  The FSIS has held public hearings to look at how we deal with 
imported food and procedures, risk management, and emergency outbreaks. 
We only have to look at our European friends to see what they have gone 
through with foot and mouth and with mad cow illness to understand that 
what we need to do is to be able to meet any kind of emergency. We need 
to move forward on food safety, not backwards. If we continue to not 
provide the kinds of inspection services that are needed, in fact, we 
will move backwards and jeopardize the health of this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for support of this amendment and to provide 
emergency assistance for food safety.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman insist upon his point of order?
  Mr. BONIOR. I continue to reserve the point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Question: How many times have we all heard; ``The 
government is too blasted big. Get the government out of our lives.'' I 
bet my colleagues have heard it a lot. Yet the first time that we have 
an outbreak of disease someplace, the first time that people die from 
contaminated food, all of a sudden people say, ``Where is the 
government? What are they doing? Why don't they get off their duffs? 
Why aren't they protecting the public interest?''
  Well, there is very good reason for that. It is because we are not 
providing the resources necessary to provide an

[[Page 12259]]

absolutely safe source of food in this country.
  The purpose of this amendment is to, over a 3-year period of time, 
bring us to where the FDA says we should be in protecting the public 
health of this country.
  When we had subcommittee hearings earlier in the year, here is what 
FDA said in response to questions: ``The inspection coverage of food 
manufacturers, particularly high-risk manufacturers, has been 
inadequate over the past several years.'' FDA estimated we would need 
at least $220 million for an optimum inspection schedule of domestic 
food facilities under our jurisdiction. This would provide inspection 
of high-risk firms twice each year, warehouses every 3 years, and all 
other food firms every 2 years.
  Now, people can argue all day long about government priorities, but 
the fact is that we are here today unable to offer this amendment 
because the budget limitations under which we are operating prevents us 
from even getting a vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman.
  Why are we in this position? Because the majority party and the White 
House insisted early on to take virtually every dime of the surpluses 
that we were hoping to have over the next 10 years and pour all of 
those monies into tax cuts. They put the lion's share of those tax cuts 
into the pockets of the very wealthiest people in this country.
  So this Congress decided it was more important to give the wealthiest 
1 percent of people in this country, who, over the last 20 years, have 
seen an after-tax rise in their income of $414,000 per family, that it 
was more important to give those people an additional tax cut of 
$53,000 a year than it is to meet our primary obligations to strengthen 
Social Security, to strengthen education, to strengthen Medicare, and 
to do all of these other little things that we need to do if we are 
going to protect the food supply of this country and the environment in 
which we all live.
  So I simply take the well today, knowing full well that this 
amendment will not receive a vote because of the rule under which the 
bill is being considered, to suggest that this again is another example 
of how we are neglecting our responsibilities of stewardship in order 
to do the easy political thing and throw all of the money that we were 
expecting to accumulate in those surpluses to tax cuts for the most 
prosperous people in this society.
  Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe this Congress could not achieve a 
better balance in priorities. I cannot believe that intelligent people 
on both sides of the aisle cannot figure out a way to guarantee that we 
do provide at least the minimum coverage that the Agency itself says we 
ought to provide in order to protect the health of the American people.
  Mr. Chairman, 5,000 Americans are going to die this year because of 
contaminated food, and millions are going to become sick. I do not 
believe that we cannot do better.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me, 
and I want to commend her for her terrific efforts in subcommittee and 
in full committee, and now on the floor, to get appropriate attention 
to the important question of food safety in our country. It really is 
staggering to think that 76 million Americans every year have some type 
of food-borne illness.

                              {time}  1600

  As modern a society as we are, we question, why does this happen? 
Part of the reason for it is because our food system, in many ways, is 
moving very far away from home.
  It used to be that you knew the farmer where your eggs came from. You 
knew the farmer who grew your strawberries. There was local 
accountability. You knew where your chickens came from. You knew where 
your beef for your sausage came from, because the people lived in your 
community and you went to the stores and the outlets that they 
operated.
  Mr. Chairman, today we live in a very industrialized food system, and 
industrialized food processing has not necessarily brought with it a 
safer food system. In fact, last year, 315 Food and Drug Administration 
regulated food products were recalled, the most recalls in 1 year since 
the mid-1980s.
  It was a 36 percent increase above the average, and part of the 
reason for that is, even though we have certain scientific methods in 
place, the way in which our food is processed actually encourages food-
borne illness.
  For example, in the area of beef, if you go into some of our 
slaughter houses and meat-packing plants now, which are very, very 
mechanized, often, an intestine will be pierced and E. coli will be 
driven into flesh in the animal that is ultimately then cut up and sold 
on the supermarket shelf.
  Mr. Chairman, some of that is not detected by the human eye. 
Industrial slaughtering is different than when animals were cut by hand 
and there were not so many animals slaughtered per day and there was 
closer oversight.
  It has never been easy to work in a meat processing facility. At the 
beginning of the 20th century, books were written about what was going 
on inside these meat-packing plants, and through the 20th century, we 
tried to improve the situation.
  In poultry, for example, if you look at the USDA inspectors who are 
on a line, the rate at which birds move by them has become so fast, the 
human eye cannot necessarily detect the different types of salmonella 
and pfiesteria and other bacterial microbes that can infect the meat 
product.
  In spite of the fact that we seem to be so modern, some of the very 
procedures that we have as well as the fact that food is grown and 
processed very far from home has made the system in some ways extremely 
vulnerable.
  It is surprising to us also that in a country as bountiful as ours 
that we have increasing amounts of food imports.
  Over the last 4 years alone, imported foods sold in the United States 
have increased by 50 percent, from 2.7 million items in 1997 to 4.1 
million last year alone. But of all the foreign imports coming in here, 
as the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) has accurately 
described, only 1 percent are inspected.
  When most people get sick from food poisoning, they do not report it 
to the Centers for Disease Control. A lot of times they do not really 
realize what is wrong with them until a couple of days later. At the 
local level, there is not an automatic reporting upstream to the CDC. 
So a lot of the food poisoning goes unreported. The DeLauro amendment 
would provide additional funds for food inspection.
  There is $98 million more for imported food inspection, which we so 
desperately need at our borders; $73 million for more FDA inspections 
of domestic food processors. Many processors do not even get inspected 
once a year; sometimes it takes up to 2 years.
  The FDA actually is the agency where 75 percent of the problem is, 75 
percent of the outbreaks and problems relate to FDA-inspected 
facilities. This means inspection is inadequate.
  The DeLauro amendment also would provide $50 million for USDA food 
safety and inspection service to carry out new procedures and 
regulations for meat and poultry food products. For example, USDA is 
currently addressing port of entry procedures and the development of 
contingency plans for emergency breakouts. Remember, we had that 
problem of strawberries in Michigan causing children to become so ill. 
To this day, we were never actually able to track back where the 
problem with those strawberries came from. We knew they were processed 
in southern California. Their origin was Mexico, but we just could not 
track it back.
  So I think the DeLauro amendment is more than worthy; it is 
essential. She has my full support on this. I hope she has the 
attention of the membership. Let us get this DeLauro amendment 
incorporated in the final bill that we bring back from the other body.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is simply an effort to try to build the 
infrastructure

[[Page 12260]]

of the agencies that we charge with protecting our food, our food 
supply, which is ultimately about the food, but it is about the safety 
of every man, women and child in this country. That is all that we are 
asking about here.
  Given the statistics, which are staggering, 5,000 deaths, 73 million 
people ill, 325,000 people hospitalized, it is unconscionable that we 
do not recognize this as a crisis and as an emergency.
  We cannot allow this to continue. We can do something about it.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. Is the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) withdrawing her amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Whitfield). Is the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut withdrawing her amendment, or does she continue to want to 
move forward on her amendment?
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to continue to move forward 
with my amendment.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) 
insist on his point of order?
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I do.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of 
order.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment, because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriations bill, and, therefore, violates clause 
2 of rule XXI. The rule states, in pertinent part, an amendment to a 
general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing 
law.
  The amendment includes an emergency designation under section 251 of 
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, and, as 
such, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentlewoman from Connecticut want 
to be heard on the point of order?
  Ms. DeLAURO. No, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Then the Chair is prepared to rule on the 
gentleman's point of order.
  The Chair finds that this amendment includes an emergency designation 
under section 251(b)(2)(a) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
Control Act of 1985, the amendment therefore constitutes legislation in 
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Whitfield). The Committee will rise 
informally.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Latham) assumed the Chair.

                          ____________________