[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12260-12272]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



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

  The Committee resumed its seating.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

    Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural 
                                Services

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services to 
     administer the laws enacted by Congress for the Farm Service 
     Agency, the Foreign Agricultural Service, the Risk Management 
     Agency, and the Commodity Credit Corporation, $611,000.

                          Farm Service Agency


                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses for carrying out the administration 
     and implementation of programs administered by the Farm 
     Service Agency, $945,993,000: Provided, That the Secretary is 
     authorized to use the services, facilities, and authorities 
     (but not the funds) of the Commodity Credit Corporation to 
     make program payments for all programs administered by the 
     Agency: Provided further, That other funds made available to 
     the Agency for authorized activities may be advanced to and 
     merged with this account: Provided further, That these funds 
     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 $1,000,000 shall be available 
     for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109.


                         state mediation grants

       For grants pursuant to section 502(b) of the Agricultural 
     Credit Act of 1987, as amended (7 U.S.C. 5101-5106), 
     $2,993,000.


                        dairy indemnity program

                     (including transfer of funds)

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


           Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For gross obligations for the principal amount of direct 
     and guaranteed loans as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1928-1929, to 
     be available from funds in the Agricultural Credit Insurance 
     Fund, as follows: farm ownership loans, $1,128,000,000, of 
     which $1,000,000,000 shall be for guaranteed loans and 
     $128,000,000 shall be for direct loans; operating loans, 
     $2,600,000,000, of which $1,500,000,000 shall be for 
     unsubsidized guaranteed loans, $500,000,000 shall be for 
     subsidized guaranteed loans, and $600,000,000 shall be for 
     direct loans; Indian tribe land acquisition loans as 
     authorized by 25 U.S.C. 488, $2,000,000; for emergency 
     insured loans, $25,000,000 to meet the needs resulting from 
     natural disasters; and for boll weevil eradication program 
     loans as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1989, $100,000,000.
       For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, including the 
     cost of modifying loans as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as follows: farm ownership 
     loans, $7,866,000, of which $4,500,000 shall be for 
     guaranteed loans and $3,366,000 shall be for direct loans; 
     operating loans, $174,030,000, of which $52,650,000 shall be 
     for unsubsidized guaranteed loans, $67,800,000 shall be for 
     subsidized guaranteed loans, and $53,580,000 shall be for 
     direct loans; Indian tribe land acquisition loans as 
     authorized by 25 U.S.C. 488, $118,000; and for emergency 
     insured loans, $3,363,000 to meet the needs resulting from 
     natural disasters.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $282,769,000, of 
     which $274,769,000 shall be transferred to and merged with 
     the appropriation for ``Farm Service Agency, Salaries and 
     Expenses''.
       Funds appropriated by this Act to the Agricultural Credit 
     Insurance Program Account for farm ownership and operating 
     direct loans and guaranteed loans may be transferred among 
     these programs: Provided, That the Appropriations Committees 
     of both Houses of Congress are notified at least 15 days in 
     advance of any transfer.

                         Risk Management Agency

       For administrative and operating expenses, as authorized by 
     the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 
     U.S.C. 6933), $75,142,000: Provided, That not to exceed $700 
     shall be available for official reception and representation 
     expenses, as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1506(i).

                              CORPORATIONS

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

                Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund

       For payments as authorized by section 516 of the Federal 
     Crop Insurance Act, such sums as may be necessary, to remain 
     available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b).

                   Commodity Credit Corporation Fund


                 reimbursement for net realized losses

       For fiscal year 2002, such sums as may be necessary to 
     reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for net realized 
     losses sustained, but not previously reimbursed, pursuant to 
     section 2 of the Act of August 17, 1961 (15 U.S.C. 713a-11).


       operations and maintenance for hazardous waste management

       For fiscal year 2002, the Commodity Credit Corporation 
     shall not expend more than $5,000,000 for site investigation 
     and cleanup expenses, and operations and maintenance expenses 
     to comply with the requirement of section 107(g) of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9607(g), and section 6001 of the 
     Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6961.

[[Page 12261]]



                                TITLE II

                         CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

  Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment to 
     administer the laws enacted by the Congress for the Forest 
     Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service, 
     $736,000.

                 Natural Resources Conservation Service


                        conservation operations

       For necessary expenses for carrying out the provisions of 
     the Act of April 27, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 590a-f), including 
     preparation of conservation plans and establishment of 
     measures to conserve soil and water (including farm 
     irrigation and land drainage and such special measures for 
     soil and water management as may be necessary to prevent 
     floods and the siltation of reservoirs and to control 
     agricultural related pollutants); operation of conservation 
     plant materials centers; classification and mapping of soil; 
     dissemination of information; acquisition of lands, water, 
     and interests therein for use in the plant materials program 
     by donation, exchange, or purchase at a nominal cost not to 
     exceed $100 pursuant to the Act of August 3, 1956 (7 U.S.C. 
     428a); purchase and erection or alteration or improvement of 
     permanent and temporary buildings; and operation and 
     maintenance of aircraft, $782,762,000, to remain available 
     until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b), of which not less than 
     $7,137,000 is for snow survey and water forecasting, and of 
     which not to exceed $30,500,000 is for technical assistance 
     activities in conjunction with the Conservation Reserve 
     Program authorized by subchapter B, chapter 1, title XII of 
     the Food Security Act of 1985, and of which not less than 
     $9,349,000 is for operation and establishment of the plant 
     materials centers, and of which not less than $20,000,000 
     shall be for the grazing lands conservation initiative: 
     Provided, That $8,500,000 of the funds authorized for 
     allotments or transfers under 15 U.S.C. 714i shall be 
     available for Conservation Reserve Program technical 
     assistance: Provided further, That appropriations hereunder 
     shall be available pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2250 for construction 
     and improvement of buildings and public improvements at plant 
     materials centers, except that the cost of alterations and 
     improvements to other buildings and other public improvements 
     shall not exceed $250,000: Provided further, That when 
     buildings or other structures are erected on non-Federal 
     land, that the right to use such land is obtained as provided 
     in 7 U.S.C. 2250a: Provided further, That this appropriation 
     shall be available for technical assistance and related 
     expenses to carry out programs authorized by section 202(c) 
     of title II of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act 
     of 1974 (43 U.S.C. 1592(c)): Provided further, That 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 $25,000 shall be 
     available for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided 
     further, That qualified local engineers may be temporarily 
     employed at per diem rates to perform the technical planning 
     work of the Service (16 U.S.C. 590e-2).


                     watershed surveys and planning

       For necessary expenses to conduct research, investigation, 
     and surveys of watersheds of rivers and other waterways, and 
     for small watershed investigations and planning, in 
     accordance with the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention 
     Act approved August 4, 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1001-1009), 
     $11,030,000: 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), 
     and not to exceed $110,000 shall be available for employment 
     under 5 U.S.C. 3109.


               watershed and flood prevention operations

       For necessary expenses to carry out preventive measures, 
     including but not limited to research, engineering 
     operations, methods of cultivation, the growing of 
     vegetation, rehabilitation of existing works and changes in 
     use of land, in accordance with the Watershed Protection and 
     Flood Prevention Act approved August 4, 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1001-
     1005 and 1007-1009), the provisions of the Act of April 27, 
     1935 (16 U.S.C. 590a-f), and in accordance with the 
     provisions of laws relating to the activities of the 
     Department, $105,743,000, to remain available until expended 
     (7 U.S.C. 2209b) (of which up to $10,000,000 may be available 
     for the watersheds authorized under the Flood Control Act 
     approved June 22, 1936 (33 U.S.C. 701 and 16 U.S.C. 1006a)): 
     Provided, That not to exceed $45,514,000 of this 
     appropriation shall be available for technical assistance: 
     Provided further, 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 $200,000 shall be available for employment under 5 
     U.S.C. 3109: Provided further, That not to exceed $1,000,000 
     of this appropriation is available to carry out the purposes 
     of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-205), 
     including cooperative efforts as contemplated by that Act to 
     relocate endangered or threatened species to other suitable 
     habitats as may be necessary to expedite project 
     construction.


                 resource conservation and development

       For necessary expenses in planning and carrying out 
     projects for resource conservation and development and for 
     sound land use pursuant to the provisions of section 32(e) of 
     title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1010-1011; 76 Stat. 607); the Act of April 27, 1935 (16 
     U.S.C. 590a-f); and the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 (16 
     U.S.C. 3451-3461), $48,361,000, to remain available until 
     expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b): 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 $50,000 shall be available 
     for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109.


                   agricultural conservation program

                         (rescission of funds)

       Of the funds appropriated for ``Agricultural Conservation 
     Program'' under Public Law 104-37, $45,000,000 is hereby 
     rescinded.

                               TITLE III

                       RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

          Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Rural Development to administer programs 
     under the laws enacted by the Congress for the Rural Housing 
     Service, the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, and the 
     Rural Utilities Service of the Department of Agriculture, 
     $628,000.


                  rural community advancement program

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For the cost of direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants, 
     as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1926, 1926a, 1926c, 1926d, and 
     1932, except for sections 381E-H, 381N, and 381O of the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, $767,465,000, to 
     remain available until expended, of which $34,503,000 shall 
     be for rural community programs described in section 
     381E(d)(1) of such Act; of which $658,994,000 shall be for 
     the rural utilities programs described in sections 
     381E(d)(2), 306C(a)(2), and 306D of such Act; and of which 
     $73,968,000 shall be for the rural business and cooperative 
     development programs described in sections 381E(d)(3) and 
     310B(f) of such Act: Provided, That of the total amount 
     appropriated in this account, $24,000,000 shall be for loans 
     and grants to benefit Federally Recognized Native American 
     Tribes, including grants for drinking water and waste 
     disposal systems pursuant to section 306C of such Act, of 
     which $4,000,000 shall be available for community facilities 
     grants to tribal colleges, as authorized by section 
     306(a)(19) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 
     Act, and of which $250,000 shall be available for a grant to 
     a qualified national organization to provide technical 
     assistance for rural transportation in order to promote 
     economic development: Provided further, That of the amount 
     appropriated for rural community programs, $6,000,000 shall 
     be available for a Rural Community Development Initiative: 
     Provided further, That such funds shall be used solely to 
     develop the capacity and ability of private, nonprofit 
     community-based housing and community development 
     organizations, low-income rural communities, and Federally 
     Recognized Native American tribes to undertake projects to 
     improve housing, community facilities, community and economic 
     development projects in rural areas: Provided further, That 
     such funds shall be made available to qualified private and 
     public intermediary organizations proposing to carry out a 
     program of financial and technical assistance: Provided 
     further, That such intermediary organizations shall provide 
     matching funds from other sources, including Federal funds 
     for related activities, in an amount not less than funds 
     provided: Provided further, That of the amount appropriated 
     for the rural business and cooperative development programs, 
     not to exceed $500,000 shall be made available for a grant to 
     a qualified national organization to provide technical 
     assistance for rural transportation in order to promote 
     economic development; and $2,000,000 shall be for grants to 
     Mississippi Delta Region counties: Provided further, That of 
     the amount appropriated for rural utilities programs, not to 
     exceed $20,000,000 shall be for water and waste disposal 
     systems to benefit the Colonias along the United States/
     Mexico borders, including grants pursuant to section 306C of 
     such Act; not to exceed $20,000,000 shall be for water and 
     waste disposal systems for rural and native villages in 
     Alaska pursuant to section 306D of such Act, of which one 
     percent to administer the program and to improve interagency 
     coordination may be transferred to and merged with the 
     appropriation for ``Rural Development, Salaries and 
     Expenses''; not to exceed $16,215,000 shall be for technical 
     assistance grants for rural water and waste systems pursuant 
     to section 306(a)(14) of such Act; and not to exceed 
     $11,000,000 shall be for contracting with qualified national 
     organizations for a circuit rider program to provide 
     technical assistance for rural water systems: Provided 
     further, That of the total amount appropriated, not to exceed 
     $37,624,000 shall be available through June 30, 2002, for 
     authorized empowerment zones and enterprise communities and 
     communities designated by the

[[Page 12262]]

     Secretary of Agriculture as Rural Economic Area Partnership 
     Zones; of which $1,163,000 shall be for the rural community 
     programs described in section 381E(d)(1) of such Act, of 
     which $27,431,000 shall be for the rural utilities programs 
     described in section 381E(d)(2) of such Act, and of which 
     $9,030,000 shall be for the rural business and cooperative 
     development programs described in section 381E(d)(3) of such 
     Act: Provided further, That any prior year balances for high 
     cost energy grants authorized by section 19 of the Rural 
     Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901(19)) shall be 
     transferred to and merged with the ``Rural Utilities Service, 
     High Energy Costs Grants'' account.


                rural development salaries and expenses

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses for carrying out the administration 
     and implementation of programs in the Rural Development 
     mission area, including activities with institutions 
     concerning the development and operation of agricultural 
     cooperatives; and for cooperative agreements; $134,733,000: 
     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), and not to exceed 
     $1,000,000 may be used for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109: 
     Provided further, That not more than $10,000 may be expended 
     to provide modest nonmonetary awards to non-USDA employees: 
     Provided further, That any balances available from prior 
     years for the Rural Utilities Service, Rural Housing Service, 
     and the Rural Business-Cooperative Service salaries and 
     expenses accounts shall be transferred to and merged with 
     this account.

                         Rural Housing Service


              rural housing insurance fund program account

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For gross obligations for the principal amount of direct 
     and guaranteed loans as authorized by title V of the Housing 
     Act of 1949, to be available from funds in the rural housing 
     insurance fund, as follows: $4,202,618,000 for loans to 
     section 502 borrowers, as determined by the Secretary, of 
     which $1,064,650,000 shall be for direct loans, and of which 
     $3,137,968,000 shall be for unsubsidized guaranteed loans; 
     $32,324,000 for section 504 housing repair loans; 
     $114,068,000 for section 515 rental housing; $99,770,000 for 
     section 538 guaranteed multi-family housing loans; $5,090,000 
     for section 524 site loans; $11,778,000 for credit sales of 
     acquired property, of which up to $1,778,000 may be for 
     multi-family credit sales; and $5,000,000 for section 523 
     self-help housing land development loans.
       For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, including the 
     cost of modifying loans, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as follows: section 502 
     loans, $180,274,000 of which $140,108,000 shall be for direct 
     loans, and of which $40,166,000 shall be for unsubsidized 
     guaranteed loans; section 504 housing repair loans, 
     $10,386,000; section 515 rental housing, $48,274,000; section 
     538 multi-family housing guaranteed loans, $3,921,000; 
     section 524 site loans, $28,000; multi-family credit sales of 
     acquired property, $750,000; and section 523 self-help 
     housing land development loans, $254,000: Provided, That of 
     the total amount appropriated in this paragraph, $11,656,000 
     shall be available through June 30, 2002, for authorized 
     empowerment zones and enterprise communities and communities 
     designated by the Secretary of Agriculture as Rural Economic 
     Area Partnership Zones.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $422,910,000, 
     which shall be transferred to and merged with the 
     appropriation for ``Rural Development, Salaries and 
     Expenses''.


                   Amendment Offered by Mrs. Clayton

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

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Clayton:
       In title III, in the item relating to ``Rural Housing 
     Insurance Fund Program Account'' add at the end the 
     following:
       Of the amounts made available under this heading in chapter 
     1 of title II of Public Law 106-246 (114 Stat. 540) for gross 
     obligations for principal amount of direct loans authorized 
     by title V of the Housing Act of 1949 for section 515 rental 
     housing, the Secretary of Agriculture may use up to 
     $5,986,197 for rental assistance agreements described in the 
     item relating to ``Rental Assistance Program'' in such 
     chapter: 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 Control Act 
     of 1985, as amended.
       In making available for occupancy dwelling units in housing 
     that is provided with funds made available under the heading 
     referred to in the preceding paragraph, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture may give preference to prospective tenants who 
     are residing in temporary housing provided by the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency as a result of an emergency.

  Mrs. CLAYTON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas reserves a point 
of order.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to offer my 
amendment at a later time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentlewoman want to withdraw her 
amendment?
  Mrs. CLAYTON. This is a housing amendment, and I thought it was 
appropriate at this point, but if there is a question about 
appropriateness of the government at this time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. CLAYTON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, just so we understand what is occurring 
here. I just want to make sure that the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
will have the opportunity to bring up her amendment at a later time, 
even if it might be out-of-page order, and it may not be able to come 
up later today, but maybe when we come back from the 4th of July.
  Mr. Chairman, we just want to reserve her rights to bring this up and 
work out whatever needs to be done with the majority.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield, we would 
have no objection to that, and she would be allowed to do that.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Whitfield). Without objection, the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) withdraws her amendment 
and, without prejudice, will be able to reoffer at an appropriate time.
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. At a later time?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. At a later point in the reading, the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina will be able to reoffer her amendment.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Do I need further instruction from the Chair? I just 
want to make sure, have I reserved my right? Is my amendment protected? 
All right.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman will be allowed to at a 
later point in the reading to offer her amendment notwithstanding 
having passed the appropriate point in the reading.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                       rental assistance program

       For rental assistance agreements entered into or renewed 
     pursuant to the authority under section 521(a)(2) or 
     agreements entered into in lieu of debt forgiveness or 
     payments for eligible households as authorized by section 
     502(c)(5)(D) of the Housing Act of 1949, $693,504,000; and, 
     in addition, such sums as may be necessary, as authorized by 
     section 521(c) of the Act, to liquidate debt incurred prior 
     to fiscal year 1992 to carry out the rental assistance 
     program under section 521(a)(2) of the Act: Provided, That of 
     this amount, not more than $5,900,000 shall be available for 
     debt forgiveness or payments for eligible households as 
     authorized by section 502(c)(5)(D) of the Act, and not to 
     exceed $10,000 per project for advances to nonprofit 
     organizations or public agencies to cover direct costs (other 
     than purchase price) incurred in purchasing projects pursuant 
     to section 502(c)(5)(C) of the Act: Provided further, That 
     agreements entered into or renewed during fiscal year 2002 
     shall be funded for a 5-year period, although the life of any 
     such agreement may be extended to fully utilize amounts 
     obligated.


                  mutual and self-help housing grants

       For grants and contracts pursuant to section 523(b)(1)(A) 
     of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1490c), $33,925,000, to 
     remain available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b): Provided, 
     That of the total amount appropriated, $1,000,000 shall be 
     available through June 30, 2002, for authorized empowerment 
     zones and enterprise communities and communities designated 
     by the Secretary of Agriculture as Rural Economic Area 
     Partnership Zones.


                    rural housing assistance grants

       For grants and contracts for very low-income housing 
     repair, supervisory and technical assistance, compensation 
     for construction defects, and rural housing preservation made 
     by the Rural Housing Service, as authorized by 42 U.S.C. 
     1474, 1479(c), 1490e, and

[[Page 12263]]

     1490m, $38,914,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That of the total amount appropriated, $1,200,000 
     shall be available through June 30, 2002, for authorized 
     empowerment zones and enterprise communities and communities 
     designated by the Secretary of Agriculture as Rural Economic 
     Area Partnership Zones.


                       farm labor program account

       For the cost of direct loans, grants, and contracts, as 
     authorized by 42 U.S.C. 1484 and 1486, $31,431,000, to remain 
     available until expended, for direct farm labor housing loans 
     and domestic farm labor housing grants and contracts.

                  Rural Business--Cooperative Service



              rural development loan fund program account

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the principal amount of direct loans, as authorized by 
     the Rural Development Loan Fund (42 U.S.C. 9812(a)), 
     $38,171,000.
       For the cost of direct loans, $16,494,000, as authorized by 
     the Rural Development Loan Fund (42 U.S.C. 9812(a)), of which 
     $1,724,000 shall be for Federally Recognized Native American 
     Tribes and of which $3,449,000 shall be for Mississippi Delta 
     Region counties (as defined by Public Law 100-460): Provided, 
     That such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, 
     shall be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That these funds are 
     available to subsidize gross obligations for the principal 
     amount of direct loans of $38,171,000: Provided further, That 
     of the total amount appropriated, $2,730,000 shall be 
     available through June 30, 2002, for the cost of direct loans 
     for authorized empowerment zones and enterprise communities 
     and communities designated by the Secretary of Agriculture as 
     Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     direct loan programs, $3,761,000 shall be transferred to and 
     merged with the appropriation for ``Rural Development, 
     Salaries and Expenses''.


            rural economic development loans program account

                    (including rescission of funds)

       For the principal amount of direct loans, as authorized 
     under section 313 of the Rural Electrification Act, for the 
     purpose of promoting rural economic development and job 
     creation projects, $14,966,000.
       For the cost of direct loans, including the cost of 
     modifying loans as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, $3,616,000.
       Of the funds derived from interest on the cushion of credit 
     payments in fiscal year 2002, as authorized by section 313 of 
     the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, $3,616,000 shall not 
     be obligated and $3,616,000 are rescinded.


                  rural cooperative development grants

       For rural cooperative development grants authorized under 
     section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932), $7,500,000, of which 
     $2,500,000 shall be available for cooperative agreements for 
     the appropriate technology transfer for rural areas program: 
     Provided, That not to exceed $1,497,000 of the total amount 
     appropriated shall be made available to cooperatives or 
     associations of cooperatives whose primary focus is to 
     provide assistance to small, minority producers.


        rural empowerment zones and enterprise community grants

       For grants in connection with a second round of empowerment 
     zones and enterprise communities $14,967,000, to remain 
     available until expended, for designated rural empowerment 
     zones and rural enterprise communities as authorized in the 
     Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.

                        Rural Utilities Service


   rural electrification and telecommunications loans program account

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Insured loans pursuant to the authority of section 305 of 
     the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 935) shall be 
     made as follows: 5 percent rural electrification loans 
     $121,107,000; municipal rate rural electric loans, 
     $794,358,000; loans made pursuant to section 306 of that Act, 
     rural electric, $2,600,000,000; Treasury rate direct electric 
     loans, $500,000,000; and guaranteed electric loans, 
     $100,000,000; 5 percent rural telecommunications loans, 
     $74,827,000; cost of money rural telecommunications loans, 
     $300,000,000; and rural telecommunications loans, 
     $120,000,000.
       For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, including the cost of 
     modifying loans, of direct and guaranteed loans authorized by 
     the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 935 and 936), 
     as follows: cost of rural electric loans, $3,689,000, and the 
     cost of telecommunication loans, $2,036,000: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding section 305(d)(2) of the Rural 
     Electrification Act of 1936, borrower interest rates may 
     exceed 7 percent per year.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $36,322,000, 
     which shall be transferred to and merged with the 
     appropriation for ``Rural Development, Salaries and 
     Expenses''.


                  rural telephone bank program account

                     (including transfer of funds)

       The Rural Telephone Bank is hereby authorized to make such 
     expenditures, within the limits of funds available to such 
     corporation in accord with law, and to make such contracts 
     and commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as 
     provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control 
     Act, as may be necessary in carrying out its authorized 
     programs. During fiscal year 2002 and within the resources 
     and authority available, gross obligations for the principal 
     amount of direct loans shall be $174,615,000.
       For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, including the cost of 
     modifying loans, of direct loans authorized by the Rural 
     Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 935), $2,584,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses, including audits, 
     necessary to carry out the loan programs, $3,107,000 which 
     shall be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     ``Rural Development, Salaries and Expenses''.


               distance learning and telemedicine program

       For the principle amount of direct distance learning and 
     telemedicine loans, $300,000,000; and for the principle 
     amount of broadband telecommunication loans, contingent upon 
     the enactment of authorizing legislation, $100,000,000.
       For the cost of direct loans and grants, as authorized by 7 
     U.S.C. 950aaa et seq., $26,941,000, to remain available until 
     expended, to be available for loans and grants for 
     telemedicine and distance learning services in rural areas: 
     Provided, That, contingent upon the enactment of authorizing 
     legislation, $1,996,000 may be available for a loan and grant 
     program to finance broadband transmission and local dial-up 
     Internet service in areas that meet the definition of ``rural 
     area'' used for the Distance Learning and Telemedicine 
     Program authorized by 7 U.S.C. 950aaa: Provided further, That 
     the cost of direct loans shall be as defined in section 502 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                                TITLE IV

                         DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS

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

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services to 
     administer the laws enacted by the Congress for the Food and 
     Nutrition Service, $592,000.

                       Food and Nutrition Service

                        child nutrition programs


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out the National School 
     Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.), except section 21, and 
     the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.), 
     except sections 17 and 21; $10,088,746,000, to remain 
     available through September 30, 2003, of which $4,748,038,000 
     is hereby appropriated and $5,340,708,000 shall be derived by 
     transfer from funds available under section 32 of the Act of 
     August 24, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c): Provided, That except as 
     specifically provided under this heading, none of the funds 
     made available under this heading shall be used for studies 
     and evaluations: Provided further, That up to $4,507,000 
     shall be available for independent verification of school 
     food service claims: Provided further, That of the funds 
     provided under this heading, $2,000,000 shall be available 
     for new activities to enhance integrity in the National 
     School Lunch Program.


             Amendment Offered by Mrs. Davis of California

  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Davis of California:
       In title IV under the heading ``child nutrition programs'', 
     insert before the period at the end the following: ``Provided 
     further, That the Secretary of Agriculture may not take into 
     account the availability of a basic allowance for housing for 
     members of the Armed Forces when determining the eligibility 
     of persons for free or reduced-price lunch programs''.

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order. We have not 
seen this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The point of order is reserved.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I realize this amendment will 
most likely not be ruled in order, but I offer it to raise awareness to 
a critical problem.
  In an effort to leverage its limited quality-of-life resources, the 
armed services are privatizing military family housing. I support this 
effort. In fact, we have some wonderful projects online in San Diego. 
But as you know, obviously there are unintended consequences of a good 
program. I would like to point out two in particular.
  This is creating a loss of income to school districts, and it is 
affecting the eligibility for free and reduced school

[[Page 12264]]

lunch programs for the children of military families.
  Let me give my colleagues some background. When a family lives in a 
military family housing community, they basically forfeit their basic 
housing allowance. But when that community housing becomes privatized, 
this basic allowance for housing is included on the servicemembers' pay 
statement. That is called an LES. Servicemembers do not actually 
receive this income, however. It is basically pass-through.
  Unfortunately, under the Department of Agriculture rules, this amount 
is included as income in determining eligibility for free and reduced 
school lunches.
  The Department of Defense adds the allowance to the pay statement to 
assist them in accounting, but the servicemember is not getting any 
additional pay for the family, and certainly not for food for their 
children.
  This could happen. Perhaps, on a Sunday, the military housing 
community is owned and operated by the military. But on Monday, that 
housing community is operated by a private company, still on the 
Federal land, but the servicemember has never moved, but has less money 
really in his pocket if his child does not become eligible for free and 
reduced lunch. They had that eligibility before.
  So families are losing some assistance, children are losing their 
free lunches, and school districts are losing Federal funds. It is the 
smaller school districts particularly that are especially affected by 
this. So we need to take a look at this issue, and I think we need to 
change the rules. This is no way, I believe, to treat the men and women 
who sacrifice so much in service to our country. So what my amendment 
would do would be to prevent the housing allowance from being used when 
determining eligibility for child nutrition programs.
  There is another issue that we are going to face as well. I hope that 
we can increase the basic housing allowance for all servicemembers 
regardless of where they live. I know in my community of San Diego, 
people are paying far greater than they should out of pocket.
  As we increase that need and keep pace with rising housing costs, we 
need to be certain that it is indexed at the end of the day so that 
there is still more money for the families to feed their children. We 
do not want to cause them to lose this valuable assistance that they 
receive, the children receive at school, if it looks as if their 
incomes have increased when, in fact, we know they really have not.
  So I asked the assistance of my colleagues on this issue and the 
commitment of the chairman to work with me to resolve this issue.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) 
insist on his point of order?
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Chair if the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Davis) is going to withdraw her amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentlewoman from California intend 
to withdraw her amendment?
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, yes. I hope that we can work 
together on this, and I certainly will ask to withdraw my amendment.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Davis) and to the chairman of the subcommittee that I 
do believe the gentlewoman has really brought up an issue that we never 
have considered, never were asked to consider during our regular 
hearings and so forth.
  I think this does involve also the authorizing of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce since they have jurisdiction over the 
school lunch program, the free and reduced lunch program, although we 
have jurisdiction over the expenditures for that.
  Knowing that some of our military personnel are extremely pressed, 
even some eligible for food stamps when serving the Government of the 
United States at points around the world, it would seem to me that we 
should find a way to encourage the Department of Education, the 
Department of Agriculture to treat our military personnel with the 
respect that they deserve.
  I want to compliment the gentlewoman for bringing this issue to the 
attention of our subcommittee and pledge my own cooperation with her in 
resolving this in the weeks and months ahead, and certainly also 
encourage her to testify before the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce as well as the authorizing Committee on Agriculture.
  We here on the Committee on Appropriations will continue to work with 
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis) as we move to conference 
with the other body.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. 
Davis) intend to withdraw her amendment?
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will do that. I know 
that there are colleagues on the other side of the aisle as well who 
have confronted this problem in their community, and I appreciate their 
help and support on this as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCHROCK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to speak on 
behalf of this amendment that was introduced by the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Davis). At a time when retention in the military is 
down, we need to find as many ways as possible to support our sailors, 
soldiers, airmen, marines and their families.
  The Department of Agriculture's current policy of counting the basic 
allowance for housing as part of income is unfair to the young men and 
women of the military who have dedicated their lives in service to our 
country.
  Many military families, many new military families are finding it 
difficult just to make ends meet. Many are living just above the 
poverty level. The long hours, the months away from loved ones and low-
paying jobs for spouses is often the norm for these families. When 
military communities introduced privatized housing to help military 
bases save on operating costs, it, unfortunately, does not always save 
money for the servicemembers.
  When a member lives on base, they forfeit their basic allowance for 
housing. When a member lives in a privatized community, the Department 
of Defense adds the allowance to their pay statement, but this is money 
they never see.
  When the Department of Agriculture includes this amount as income, it 
affects many families' eligibility for free or reduced school lunches. 
Schoolchildren lose their free lunches, families lose their assistance, 
and school districts lose Federal funds that receive this money to 
assist for free and reduced school lunch programs.
  At the Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek in Virginia Beach, they 
were working with the Department of Housing Authority to plan for 
privatized housing in Virginia Beach and Norfolk, which I represent. I 
do not want to see what is happening in the district of the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Davis) happen to the military families in our 
area.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I thank the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis) for introducing it.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children 
                                 (wic)

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out the special 
     supplemental nutrition program as authorized by section 17 of 
     the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786), 
     $4,137,086,000, to remain available through September 30, 
     2003: Provided, That none of the funds made available under 
     this heading shall be used for studies and evaluations: 
     Provided further, That of the total amount available, the 
     Secretary may obligate up to $25,000,000 for the farmers' 
     market nutrition program and up to $15,000,000 for senior 
     farmers' market activities from any funds not needed to 
     maintain current caseload levels: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding section 17(h)(10)(A) of

[[Page 12265]]

     such Act, up to $10,000,000 shall be available for the 
     purposes specified in section 17(h)(10)(B), no less than 
     $6,000,000 of which shall be used for the development of 
     electronic benefit transfer systems: Provided further, That 
     none of the funds in this Act shall be available to pay 
     administrative expenses of WIC clinics except those that have 
     an announced policy of prohibiting smoking within the space 
     used to carry out the program: Provided further, That none of 
     the funds provided in this account shall be available for the 
     purchase of infant formula except in accordance with the cost 
     containment and competitive bidding requirements specified in 
     section 17 of such Act: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds provided shall be available for activities that are not 
     fully reimbursed by other Federal Government departments or 
     agencies unless authorized by section 17 of such Act.


                           food stamp program

       For necessary expenses to carry out the Food Stamp Act (7 
     U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), $21,991,986,000, of which 
     $1,000,000,000 shall be placed in reserve for use only in 
     such amounts and at such times as may become necessary to 
     carry out program operations: Provided, That none of the 
     funds made available under this heading shall be used for 
     studies and evaluations: Provided further, That funds 
     provided herein shall be expended in accordance with section 
     16 of the Food Stamp Act: Provided further, That this 
     appropriation shall be subject to any work registration or 
     workfare requirements as may be required by law: Provided 
     further, That funds made available for Employment and 
     Training under this heading shall remain available until 
     expended, as authorized by section 16(h)(1) of the Food Stamp 
     Act: Provided further, That funds provided under this heading 
     may be used to procure food coupons necessary for program 
     operations in this or subsequent fiscal years until 
     electronic benefit transfer implementation is complete.


                      commodity assistance program

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out the commodity 
     supplemental food program as authorized by section 4(a) of 
     the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 (7 U.S.C. 
     612c note) and the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983, 
     $152,813,000, to remain available through September 30, 2003: 
     Provided, That none of these funds shall be available to 
     reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for commodities 
     donated to the program: Provided further, That of the total 
     amount available, the Secretary may obligate up to 
     $15,000,000 for senior farmers' market activities from any 
     funds not needed to maintain current caseload levels: 
     Provided further, That notwithstanding section 5(a)(2) of the 
     Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 (Public Law 
     93-86; 7 U.S.C. 612c note), $21,820,000 of this amount shall 
     be available for administrative expenses of the commodity 
     supplemental food program.


                        food donations programs

       For necessary expenses to carry out section 4(a) of the 
     Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973; special 
     assistance for the nuclear affected islands as authorized by 
     section 103(h)(2) of the Compacts of Free Association Act of 
     1985, as amended; and section 311 of the Older Americans Act 
     of 1965, $150,749,000, to remain available through September 
     30, 2003.

                      food program administration

       For necessary administrative expenses of the domestic food 
     programs funded under this Act, $126,656,000, of which 
     $5,000,000 shall be available only for simplifying 
     procedures, reducing overhead costs, tightening regulations, 
     improving food stamp benefit delivery, and assisting in the 
     prevention, identification, and prosecution of fraud and 
     other violations of law and of which not less than $4,500,000 
     shall be available to improve integrity in the Food Stamp and 
     Child Nutrition programs: 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 $150,000 shall be available 
     for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109.

                                TITLE V

                FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

                      Foreign Agricultural Service


                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Foreign Agricultural Service, 
     including carrying out title VI of the Agricultural Act of 
     1954 (7 U.S.C. 1761-1768), market development activities 
     abroad, and for enabling the Secretary to coordinate and 
     integrate activities of the Department in connection with 
     foreign agricultural work, including not to exceed $158,000 
     for representation allowances and for expenses pursuant to 
     section 8 of the Act approved August 3, 1956 (7 U.S.C. 1766), 
     $122,631,000: Provided, That the Service may utilize advances 
     of funds, or reimburse this appropriation for expenditures 
     made on behalf of Federal agencies, public and private 
     organizations and institutions under agreements executed 
     pursuant to the agricultural food production assistance 
     programs (7 U.S.C. 1737) and the foreign assistance programs 
     of the United States Agency for International Development: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated in this 
     account may be used to pay the salaries and expenses of 
     personnel to disburse funds to any rice trade association 
     under the market access program or the foreign market 
     development program at any time when the applicable 
     international activity agreement for such program is not in 
     effect.
       None of the funds in the foregoing paragraph shall be 
     available to promote the sale or export of tobacco or tobacco 
     products.


                     public law 480 program account

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of agreements under the 
     Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, 
     and the Food for Progress Act of 1985, including the cost of 
     modifying credit arrangements under said Acts, $122,600,000, 
     to remain available until expended.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     credit program of title I, Public Law 83-480, and the Food 
     for Progress Act of 1985, to the extent funds appropriated 
     for Public Law 83-480 are utilized, $2,013,000, of which 
     $1,033,000 may be transferred to and merged with the 
     appropriation for ``Foreign Agricultural Service, Salaries 
     and Expenses'', and of which $980,000 may be transferred to 
     and merged with the appropriation for ``Farm Service Agency, 
     Salaries and Expenses''.


        public law 480 title i ocean freight differential grants

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For expenses during the current fiscal year, not otherwise 
     recoverable, and unrecovered prior years' costs, including 
     interest thereon, under the Agricultural Trade Development 
     and Assistance Act of 1954, $20,277,000, to remain available 
     until expended, for ocean freight differential costs for the 
     shipment of agricultural commodities under title I of said 
     Act: Provided, That funds made available for the cost of 
     title I agreements and for title I ocean freight differential 
     may be used interchangeably between the two accounts with 
     prior notice to the Committees on Appropriations of both 
     Houses of Congress.


                public law 480 grants--titles ii and iii

       For expenses during the current fiscal year, not otherwise 
     recoverable, and unrecovered prior years' costs, including 
     interest thereon, under the Agricultural Trade Development 
     and Assistance Act of 1954, $835,159,000, to remain available 
     until expended, for commodities supplied in connection with 
     dispositions abroad under title II of said Act.


       commodity credit corporation export loans program account

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For administrative expenses to carry out the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation's export guarantee program, GSM 102 and 
     GSM 103, $4,021,000, to cover common overhead expenses as 
     permitted by section 11 of the Commodity Credit Corporation 
     Charter Act and in conformity with the Federal Credit Reform 
     Act of 1990, of which $3,224,000 may be transferred to and 
     merged with the appropriation for ``Foreign Agricultural 
     Service, Salaries and Expenses'', and of which $797,000 may 
     be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     ``Farm Service Agency, Salaries and Expenses''.

                                TITLE VI

           RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                      Food and Drug Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Food and Drug Administration, 
     including hire and purchase of passenger motor vehicles; for 
     payment of space rental and related costs pursuant to Public 
     Law 92-313 for programs and activities of the Food and Drug 
     Administration which are included in this Act; for rental of 
     special purpose space in the District of Columbia or 
     elsewhere; and for miscellaneous and emergency expenses of 
     enforcement activities, authorized and approved by the 
     Secretary and to be accounted for solely on the Secretary's 
     certificate, not to exceed $25,000; $1,342,339,000, of which 
     not to exceed $161,716,000 to be derived from prescription 
     drug user fees authorized by 21 U.S.C. 379(h), including any 
     such fees assessed prior to the current fiscal year but 
     credited during the current year, in accordance with 21 
     U.S.C. 379h(g)(4), and shall be credited to this 
     appropriation and remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That of the total amount appropriated $6,000,000 for costs 
     related to occupancy of new facilities at White Oak, 
     Maryland, shall remain available until September 30, 2003.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio:
       In title VI, in the item relating to ``DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 
     AND HUMAN SERVICES-Food and Drug Administration-salaries and 
     expenses'', insert before the

[[Page 12266]]

     period at the end of the first paragraph the following:

     : Provided further, That of the total amount appropriated, 
     $2,500,000 is available for the purpose of carrying out the 
     responsibilities of the Food and Drug Administration with 
     respect to abbreviated applications for the approval of new 
     drugs under section 505(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act, and $250,000 is available under section 
     903(d)(2)(D) of such Act for the purpose of carrying out 
     public information programs regarding drugs with approved 
     such applications, in addition to other allocations for such 
     purposes made from such total amount

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment be limited to 20 minutes and that the time be equally 
divided.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Whitfield). The time equally divided 
between the proponent and an opponent?
  Mr. BONILLA. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes and 15 
seconds.
  Within the next 5 years, patents on brand-name drugs with combined 
U.S. sales approaching $20 billion will expire. Given the tremendous 
cost savings with generic competition, it has never been more important 
to reduce unnecessary delays in FDA approval of generic drugs.
  The amendment I am offering today, along with the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), and the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Pallone), would increase funding for the Office of Generic Drugs 
by $2.5 million. Our amendment builds on the $1.5 million increase 
already allocated to this office under the leadership of the chairman, 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), and the ranking member, the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  I am pleased the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) supports this 
amendment. While I understand how difficult it is to allocate limited 
FDA resources, this amendment will pay for itself many times over. 
Additional dollars committed to the Office of Generic Drugs will 
generate enormous returns for American consumers, for Federal and State 
governments, and for employer-sponsored health plans.
  Prescription drug spending increased by 18.8 percent last year, 
accounting for half the increase in national health spending and a 
third of the increase in employer-sponsored health coverage. Generic 
drugs cost on average 40 to 80 percent less than their brand name 
counterparts. Sometimes they are 90 percent cheaper.
  To get a sense of the savings inherent in approving these drugs more 
rapidly: brand-name drug companies receive 6 additional months of 
market exclusivity when they conduct pediatric clinical trials. That 6 
months, on the average, represents $695 million in lost consumer 
savings each year. It takes 6 to 12 months, on average, to review a new 
drug application. It takes 18 months, on average, to review a generic 
drug application. Multiply that $695 million, Mr. Chairman, times the 
full universe of generic drugs, and the 6-month difference means tens 
of billions of dollars in lost savings.
  There are 300 scientists on staff today to review generic drug 
applications. There are more than 2,100 scientists on staff to review 
new drug applications. By giving the Office of Generic Drugs the 
resources it needs, we can make a tangible difference in easing the 
prescription drug spending burden. Opportunities to reduce both public 
and private spending on prescription drugs without sacrificing access 
or quality are very hard to come by.
  Our amendment provides an additional $250,000 to fully fund a 
national campaign to raise public awareness about generic drugs. 
Generic drugs are as safe and as effective as brand-name drugs; they 
are just cheaper. But there is clearly an information gap when it comes 
to generics. Eighty-three percent of Americans report no bias against 
generic drugs, but only 54 percent fill prescriptions with the 
generics. There is a misperception that as conditions become more 
serious, the use of generic drugs becomes more risky. The greatest bias 
against generic drugs exists when cost savings, unfortunately when cost 
savings are potentially the greatest for serious conditions requiring 
expensive long-term treatment.
  If we can get generic drugs to market on a more timely basis and 
encourage more widespread use of these products, the public and private 
sector savings will quickly dwarf our investment. I ask the Members of 
this Congress to support the amendment.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The bill that 
the committee has presented to the House includes a very carefully 
balanced recommendation for funding for the Food and Drug 
Administration. The $39 million provided in this bill for generic drug 
activities includes a 17 percent increase for generic drug review, 
generous by any standard.
  I should also note that the funding for generics includes the only 
FDA program increase above the President's budget, which certainly 
demonstrates our commitment to affordable, effective, and safe generic 
drugs. So, again, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), who has fought for low-cost prescription 
drugs for several years in this body.
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman 
from Ohio for his leadership in this effort.
  The American people, Mr. Chairman, are continuing to be robbed by the 
brand-name prescription drug manufacturers in this country. The reason 
that happens is because they have patent protection, they have trade 
barriers to protect them, and they have limited access to generic 
medicine. It is time that we do something about that. It is time that 
we make reasonably priced prescription medicine available to the 
American people. We know that they could be saving $20 billion a year 
today if they had access to generic medicine that is not available to 
them today.
  What we are asking in this amendment is that we provide $2.5 million 
to the FDA so they can have the ability to approve more generic 
medicine to the American people that would be offered at a much more 
reasonable price and create competition in the prescription medicine 
market that we have to deal with today. Generic drugs cost, on the 
average, 75 percent less than brand names.
  As I said, we know that we can save the American people $20 billion a 
year if we do this. It takes 6 to 12 months to review a new drug 
application, but it takes 18 months today, because of FDA's limited 
ability, to approve a generic drug application. This does not make any 
sense that this would be the case.
  So I urge the Members of this House to vote for this amendment and 
support the effort of the gentleman from Ohio to provide the American 
people with reasonably priced prescription medicine.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), who has been very involved in 
health care issues, especially prescription drug and managed care 
issues.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Brown amendment. 
There is a need for statutory or legislative initiatives that allow 
timely access and availability of generic drugs once the patent on a 
brand-name drug

[[Page 12267]]

expires. Brand-name companies have become proficient in manipulating 
Hatch-Waxman law and aggressive campaigns to block or delay generic 
alternatives from reaching the market.
  One way of alleviating this problem is to provide more funding to the 
FDA's Office of Generic Drugs. Currently, the agricultural 
appropriation bill includes a $1.75 million increase in funding for 
this office, and I would like to see an additional $2.5 million for the 
Office of Generic Drugs. In addition, I would like to see an investment 
of an additional $250,000 on top of the $250,000 already in the bill 
for a national campaign to raise public awareness about the safety and 
cost effectiveness of generics.
  The tactics used by the brand-name industry to delay generic drugs 
from coming on the market are widespread and well known. By giving the 
FDA Office of Generic Drugs the appropriate levels of funding, it will 
have the resources to help move generic drugs to the market more 
quickly, to run an education campaign, and to overall significantly 
bring down the cost of prescription drugs.
  We need more money for this office so we can reduce the cost of 
prescription drugs, which is so important to our seniors and to so many 
Americans. I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for bringing 
this up, and I urge all my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak in favor of this 
amendment. This is a very critical allocation of funds, primarily 
because we are having such a difficult time in getting generic drugs to 
the market.
  Let me just point out that I am the sole person who is responsible 
for my mother-in-law. I just wrote a check to Bill's Pharmacy in Cape 
Girardeau, Missouri, $636 for four different medicines last month. The 
month before that I wrote a check for $572. The month before that I 
wrote a check for $835. And these are for brand-name drugs because it 
is very difficult to get a generic equivalent to market. It is 
atrocious.
  Now, my mother-in-law has a supplemental Blue Cross/Blue Shield 
policy. It only goes up to $1,500, so my colleagues can imagine how 
quickly she uses that, because of the money that I have had to spend on 
her behalf.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I think this is an absolutely important and 
critical amendment, and I hope that the chairman will allow it to be 
considered.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from 
Missouri.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my friend, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to stand in support the 
bill. I want to thank both the chairman of the subcommittee and also 
the ranking member because this amendment actually builds on the $1.5 
million increase they have in the bill. This would help move generic 
drugs to the market quicker. We are talking about $2.5 million. It 
typically takes 6 to 12 months to review a new drug application, but 18 
months for the generic drugs.
  This will help all our people, but particularly our seniors, who take 
more prescription drugs and spend billions every year on prescription 
drugs. Let us see if we can get generics there to save our seniors some 
dollars.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I thank him so very much for bringing up this important 
amendment.
  I think it is important for the membership to know this does not 
involve any new money but merely a reallocation of funds within the 
Food and Drug Administration itself. So this is a very, very worthy 
amendment.
  We have had to try to fight in this bill and the bill last year to 
try to get more attention to the approval of generic drugs, which so 
many Americans obviously need. They are a lot less expensive. I can 
remember when Claude Pepper used to stand on this floor trying to get 
generic drug incentives put into the law.
  So I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio, as always, taking the 
leadership on health questions and certainly trying to get medicine to 
people who need it. In my neighborhood, there are many citizens who 
make a choice between food and medicine every weekend when they shop at 
the local supermarket. This will help families like them.
  We need to get FDA working more quickly. And I am so happy that the 
gentleman from the Committee on Energy and Commerce has brought this to 
our attention and has given us additional drive to get additional 
generic drugs approved. So I fully support his amendment. It is within 
the budget resolution and within our allocation, and I would urge the 
membership to support him.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Toledo.
  In summary, Mr. Chairman, this amendment increases funding for the 
Office of Generic Drugs, to speed the approval process for generic 
drugs, to get them on the market more quickly, because generic drugs 
save money; always 40 to 60 to 80 percent over the price of a name-
brand drug, sometimes as much as 90 percent. Consumers deserve access 
to generic drugs as quickly as possible. It will save money for 
America's consumers; it will save money for all levels of government 
that provide prescription drugs to employees and to citizens of this 
country; it will save money for employer health care plans.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for support of the Brown amendment on generics.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) will be 
postponed.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

  Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio:
       In title VI, in the item relating to ``DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 
     AND HUMAN SERVICES-Food and Drug Administration-salaries and 
     expenses'', insert before the period at the end of the first 
     paragraph the following:

     : Provided further, That of the total amount appropriated, 
     $5,000,000 is available for the purpose of carrying out the 
     responsibilities of the Food and Drug Administration with 
     respect to antibiotic drugs, in addition to other allocations 
     for such purpose made from such total amount

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment be limited to 20 minutes and that the time be equally 
divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would seek clarification. The time divided is 
between the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Bonilla)?
  Mr. BONILLA. The Chair is correct.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

[[Page 12268]]



                              {time}  1645

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment allocates funds to carry out the FDA's 
antibiotic resistance plan. On January 18, 2001, the FDA, the Centers 
for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes of 
Health unveiled an action plan developed by an interdepartmental task 
force that provides the United States with a comprehensive approach to 
combat the emerging threat of antimicrobial resistance. The plan 
designated 13 near-term priorities to deal with the problem of 
antibiotic resistance.
  The introduction of antibiotics in the 1940s gave the medical 
community an overwhelming advantage in its fight against infectious 
diseases, against TB and pneumonia, against cholera and typhoid, 
against many other long-time killers. But as bacteria have been exposed 
to antibiotics, resistant strains have emerged as a real threat to the 
efficacy of antibiotic drugs and to human health. The recent experience 
of the global medical community with tuberculosis is an excellent 
example of what can happen when an infectious disease develops 
antibiotic-resistant strains, and the threat that this poses to public 
health in the United States and around the world.
  Mr. Chairman, multidrug-resistant TB is as a result of antibiotic 
overuse, incorrect or interrupted treatment, and an inadequate supply 
of effective drugs. While outpatient treatment for standard TB costs a 
few thousand dollars, treatment of multidrug-resistant TB, MDRTB, costs 
as much as $250,000, and it may not be successful.
  Mr. Chairman, we do not want to see this scenario of increased costs 
and increased mortality repeated with other infectious diseases. The 
first step in addressing the problem of antibiotic resistance is to 
identify the true scope of the problem. We know that AR infections are 
seen more often in emergency rooms. We know that antibiotic resistance 
occurs wherever antibiotics are used, and we know that overuse and 
misuse of antibiotics exacerbates the problems of antibiotic 
resistance.
  But we need to know which drugs are being affected most, and when, 
how and why antibiotic drugs are being prescribed. We must educate the 
American public on the proper use of antibiotics, and we must encourage 
the development of new antimicrobial therapies.
  The amendment I am proposing today does not seek to ban the use of 
any antibiotics, it would simply appropriate the funds necessary to 
implement those near-term priorities of the government's action plan 
that would take place at FDA. These priorities were not set by me. They 
were not set by my colleagues. They were not set by any special 
interest groups. They were established by doctors and scientists and 
public health officials from FDA, CDC, NIH and other Federal agencies.
  The Committee on Appropriations has recommended a $126 million budget 
increase for FDA over last year. This $5 million set aside would allow 
FDA to begin to execute the portions of the antibiotic resistance 
action plan within its responsibility and would leave the decision on 
the sources of the offset to the Agency.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for Members to support the Brown amendment on 
antibiotic resistance.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The bill that 
the committee has presented to the House includes a very carefully 
balanced recommendation for funding for the Food and Drug 
Administration, including $27 million for antimicrobial resistance 
activities. This is an increase of over 70 percent from just 2 years 
ago, which clearly demonstrates our commitment in this area.
  The gentleman's amendment proposes to increase funding for certain 
purposes, but it makes no proposal on where the money should come from. 
I would like to say that I am very happy that we were able to provide 
significant increases for the FDA. It is vitally important for that 
agency to have the resources to perform its public health mission. We 
were able to provide them the following increases above last year's 
level: $15 million to prevent 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; $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; $1.75 million to improve the timeliness of generic 
drug application review and to provide generic drug education; and full 
funding of increased payroll 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 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 of activities at FDA involving research, 
application review, inspections, and all of 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 FDA 
will put them to good use.
  Now here is my point. In the real world, when we go to conference 
with the other body, the increase that the gentleman's amendment 
proposes would have to come out of other increases that the committee 
provided. So where should it come from? Should we reduce FDA's food 
safety activities? We have heard a number of speeches today that told 
us not to do that. Should we reduce protection for people participating 
in clinical trials, or reduce resources for blood safety or BSE 
prevention?
  Mr. Chairman, I ask all Members to support the committee's 
recommended increases in FDA. I oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I 
ask for its defeat.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Brown-
Slaughter amendment. This amendment would set aside $5 million in the 
FDA's budget for the purpose of implementing FDA's portion of the 
public health action plan to combat antimicrobial resistance. As a 
former microbiologist with a master's degree in public health, I am 
profoundly concerned over the rising number of infections that do not 
respond to the majority of antibiotics in our medical arsenal.
  In my judgment, the resistance of bacterial infections to antibiotics 
represents a major public health crisis in the Nation today. According 
to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in some parts of the 
country more than 40 percent of streptococcus pneumonae infections are 
highly resistant to penicillin. Moreover, approximately 70 percent of 
the bacterial infections acquired in a hospital setting are resistant 
to at least one antimicrobial drug. As long ago as 1997, at least one 
strain of staphylococcus 
developed resistance against the last and strongest antibiotic 
available: vancomycin.
  These facts have a real impact on patients. According to the WHO, 1 
American dies every 38 minutes because of a drug-resistant infection. 
When first-line drugs against these infections are not effective, 
patients are sicker for longer periods of time. In the case of patients 
with suppressed immune systems, or those recovering from surgery or 
injury, a delay in effective treatment of infection can be fatal. 
Children are particularly susceptible. In 1999, the CDC reported that 
four otherwise healthy children had died of drug-resistant 
staphylococcus aureus infections.
  If we fail to slow the rise of resistance to these infections, we 
could find ourselves returning to a day when common infections like 
tuberculosis and salmonella could become untreatable, and potentially 
fatal.

[[Page 12269]]

  A wide range of factors are contributing to the rise of resistance of 
antimicrobial agents. They include the overprescription of antibiotics, 
viral infections which do not respond to antibiotics; the misuse of 
antibiotics, such as the use of a newer, broad-range antibiotic when a 
less recent version would be equally effective; and the decline in 
simple sanitation measures, like effective hand-washing.
  The various agencies responsible for the many aspects of the 
antimicrobial resistance issue have come together and issued a 
comprehensive plan of attack against this problem. ``A Public Health 
Action Plan to Combat Antimicrobial Resistance'' was developed in 
partnership by the FDA, the CDC, and the National Institutes of Health, 
with input and assistance from the Agency for Health Care Research and 
Quality, the Department of Agriculture, Department of Defense, 
Department of Veterans Affairs, the Environmental Protection Agency, 
the Health Care Financing Administration, and the Health Resources and 
Services Administration.
  This was an exhaustive and overarching effort to show the advance of 
antimicrobial resistance. As one of the lead agencies in developing 
this plan, the FDA has a crucial role to play in its implementation. 
The Brown-Slaughter amendment would set aside $5 million for the FDA to 
begin to stem the rising tide of antimicrobial resistance. This modest 
investment has the potential to save untold numbers of lives.
  I urge my colleagues in the strongest possible terms to support the 
Brown-Slaughter amendment. Antimicrobial resistance is a quiet crisis 
growing in the United States, and we ignore it at our own risk.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time, and thank him for his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, how many times have Americans gone to a doctor, been 
prescribed an antibiotic only to find out it did not work, that it was 
not effective for them? This vignette of a patient taking medication, 
hoping it is going to be of value to fight infection is something that 
is repeated many times around the world. Yet we know for some reason 
antibiotics are not effective because of certain resistance. What the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) is doing is trying to get an additional 
$5 million to fund components of the action plan to combat 
antimicrobial resistance.
  Mr. Chairman, this money will be money well spent because this is not 
only a health problem in this country, this is a world health problem. 
I thank the gentleman for his dedication.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who is the ranking member of the subcommittee.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Brown) for taking leadership on this important issue of 
antimicrobial research.
  Mr. Chairman, it has been amazing to me among families and friends, 
staff members and their families back home, how many individuals go 
into a hospital and are the victims of an infection. In spite of some 
of the best knowledge we have with modern medicine, yet we find that 
there is this antimicrobial resistance that in some ways is as a result 
of the technologies that we brought on board in the 20th century.
  As we now embark on the 21st century, this research to add funding to 
help to expedite the action plan to combat antimicrobial resistance is 
essential. We know that life transforms and that every action has an 
equal and opposite reaction. I am sure that is the case, that 
scientists note every day, whether we are talking about HIV-AIDS or 
whether we are talking about some type of staphylococcus infection 
which becomes resistant to antibiotics which have been brought on board 
in years past.
  We need to know which drugs are being affected most; how, when and 
why antibiotic drugs are being prescribed. We must educate physicians 
and the public on the proper use of antibiotics. I have been amazed at 
people who have taken antibiotics and find their systems having to 
readjust anywhere from 6 months to a year.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman. The amendment would 
simply authorize funding for priorities already set by the health 
agencies of this government. I urge my colleagues for a ``yes'' vote on 
this important amendment on antimicrobial research. It provides $5 
million to the FDA to expedite the carrying out of priority action 
items designated under an adopted action plan.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  I ask my colleagues to speak to a physician or to a nurse or to a 
hospital administrator or to a medical researcher about this problem of 
antibiotic resistance. Every one of them will tell you that they know 
of cases, they have seen cases, they have seen the damage done by cases 
where antibiotic resistance is very real. Antibiotics are not as 
effective as they were a year ago or 5 years ago or 10 years ago. They 
also will tell you that we need action, we need to begin to recognize 
the problem, we need to anticipate the problem of growing resistance to 
antibiotics, and we need to do something about the problem.
  This amendment does not ban any antibiotics. It simply carries out 
the action plan that our government has suggested. I ask for support 
for the Brown-Slaughter amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Brown) will be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Engel

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Engel:
       In title VI, in the item relating to ``DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 
     AND HUMAN SERVICES-Food and Drug Administration-salaries and 
     expenses'', insert before the period at the end of the first 
     paragraph the following:

     : Provided further, That of the total amount appropriated, 
     $250,000 is available for the purpose of carrying out the 
     responsibilities of the Food and Drug Administration with 
     respect to food labeling within the meaning of section 403 of 
     the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, in addition to 
     other allocations for such purpose made from such total 
     amount

  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment be limited to 30 minutes and that the time be equally 
divided between the proponent and an opponent.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Engel) will be recognized for 15 minutes and the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Latham) will be recognized for 15 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment sets aside $250,000, which in the totality 
of this budget is very, very small, for the FDA to develop labeling 
requirements indicating that no child slave labor was used in the 
growing and harvesting of cocoa.
  Forty-three percent of the world's cocoa beans come from small 
scattered farms in the Ivory Coast. The beans are prized for their 
quality and abundance. In the first 3 months of 2001, more than 47,300 
tons of them were shipped to the United States to be processed by U.S. 
cocoa processors.
  There are more than 600,000 small farms and no corporate or 
government agency in the Ivory Coast is monitoring them for slave 
trade. The United Nations estimates that approximately 200,000 slaves 
are working in various trades in West Africa and the State Department 
has estimated that about

[[Page 12270]]

15,000 children between the ages of 9 and 12 have been sold into forced 
labor in northern Ivory Coast in recent years. Let me repeat that. The 
State Department has estimated that about 15,000 children between the 
ages of 9 and 12 have been sold into forced labor in northern Ivory 
Coast in recent years.
  On many of the farms, the fields are cleared and the crops are 
harvested by boys between the ages of 12 and 16 who were sold or 
tricked into slavery. Some are even as young as 9. These boys come from 
neighboring countries, including Mali, Burkina Faso, Benin, and Togo 
and do not speak the most common language used in the Ivory Coast, 
French. They are children, who, out of respect, will do anything to 
help their parents. The boys are uneducated, come from poor countries 
and are wooed by offers of money, bicycles, and trade jobs. 
``Locateurs'' offer them work as welders or carpenters, and they are 
told falsely that they will be paid $170 a year. As soon as they accept 
the offer, they are sold into slavery and are forced to clear the 
fields and harvest the cocoa crop. They live on corn paste and bananas, 
work 12 to 14 hours a day for no pay, suffer from whippings, are locked 
up at night in small, windowless rooms, and are given cans to urinate 
in.
  One of these boys, Aly Diabate, was sold into slavery when he was 
barely 4 feet tall. He said, ``Some of the bags were taller than me. It 
took two people to put the bag on my head. And when you didn't hurry, 
you were beaten. The beatings were a part of my life. Anytime they 
loaded you with bags and you fell while carrying them, nobody helped 
you. Instead, they beat you and beat you until you picked it up 
again.''
  Mr. Chairman, this must be stopped. Just like we cannot accept slave 
labor in factories in Asia, we must not accept products being sold in 
this country that are made by enslaved child labor. In 1999, former 
President Clinton issued an executive order prohibiting Federal 
agencies from purchasing products made by enslaved children. However, 
cocoa products were not included on this list.
  Americans spend $13 billion a year on chocolate. I love chocolate. 
But most of them are ignorant of where the cocoa beans come from. And a 
lot of the cocoa beans come from the Ivory Coast. We must change that. 
This amendment provides funding for the FDA to develop a label 
indicating that enslaved child labor was not used to harvest the cocoa 
beans. That is all this does. We want to ensure that when people of 
this country eat chocolate, they are not eating chocolate that was 
processed by child slavery.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in opposition to the amendment. As with the prior two 
amendments, we have fully funded FDA's budget request for this 
activity. Additional money for food labeling will come from other vital 
areas.
  I ask rhetorically, from which priority would the gentleman prefer to 
delete the $250,000? From blood safety, from developing methods to 
detect food pathogens, or even generic drug review?
  I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I hope that the Members will take this 
amendment seriously, because it is in fact a very serious matter. It 
is, in some measure, a result of this global trading pattern that we 
have engaged in without really examining closely and understanding 
fully the consequences of this system.
  A recent report by our own State Department estimated that there are 
currently some 15,000 children working on cocoa and similar plantations 
in the Ivory Coast alone. That is the source of about 43 percent of the 
cocoa that is imported into this country. I think that if people in 
this country knew that they were buying products that were the result 
of slave labor, particularly the labor of children as young as 8 or 9 
years old, they would not buy it. And I think that this amendment which 
proposes a simple labeling mechanism to indicate where this cocoa is 
coming from and the slave conditions under which it is being farmed and 
harvested is a good amendment and it ought to be adopted.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member on the agriculture subcommittee.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank my esteemed colleague the gentleman 
from New York for yielding me this time and rise in support of his 
amendment which is a very straightforward and simple amendment to ask 
FDA to engage itself in the proper labeling of goods that come into 
this country. In the area of cocoa beans and chocolate, I think we do 
not often think of where a product's ingredients come from.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record an article that was published 
in the St. Paul Pioneer Press on June 24 of this year that talks about 
the cocoa beans that come here to America blended into our product from 
places like the Ivory Coast.

            [From the St. Paul Pioneer Press, June 24, 2001]

                           Daloa, Ivory Coast

       There may be a hidden ingredient in the chocolate cake you 
     baked, the candy bars your children sold for their school 
     fund-raiser or that fudge ripple ice cream cone you enjoyed 
     on Saturday afternoon. Slave labor. Forty-three percent of 
     the world's cocoa beans, the raw material in chocolate, come 
     from small, scattered farms in the poor West African country 
     of Ivory Coast. And on some of the farms, the hot, hard work 
     of clearing the fields and harvesting the crop is done by 
     boys who were sold or tricked into slavery. Most of them are 
     12 to 16 years old. Some are as young as 9. The slaves live 
     on corn paste and bananas. Some are whipped, beaten and 
     broken like horses to harvest the almond-size beans.
       The State Department's human rights report last year 
     concluded that some 15,000 children ages 9 to 12 have been 
     sold into forced labor on cotton, coffee and cocoa 
     plantations in northern Ivory Coast in recent years.
       Aly Diabate was almost 12 when a slave trader promised him 
     a bicycle and $150 a year to help support his poor parents in 
     Mali. He worked for a year and a half for a cocoa farmer who 
     is known as ``Le Gros'' (``The Big Man'') but he said his 
     only rewards were the rare days when Le Gros' overseers or 
     older slaves didn't flog him with a bicycle chain or branches 
     from a cacao tree.
       Cocoa beans come from pods on the cacao tree. To get the 
     400 or so beans it takes to make a pound of chocolate, the 
     boys who work on Ivory Coast's cocoa farms cut pods from the 
     trees, slice them open, scoop out the beans, spread them in 
     baskets or on mats and cover them to ferment. They uncover 
     the beans, put them in the sun to dry, bag them and load them 
     onto trucks to begin the long journey to America or Europe.
       Aly said he doesn't know what the beans from the cacao tree 
     taste like after they've been processed and blended with 
     sugar, milk and other ingredients. That happens far away from 
     the farm where he worked, in places such as Hershey, Pa., 
     Milwaukee and San Francisco.
       ``I don't know what chocolate is,'' said Aly. The chocolate 
     chain Americans spend $13 billion a year on chocolate, but 
     most of them are as ignorant of where it comes from as the 
     boys who harvest cocoa beans are about where their beans go.
       More cocoa beans come from Ivory Coast than from anyplace 
     else in the world. The country's beans are prized for their 
     quality and abundance, and in the first three months of this 
     year, more than 47,300 tons of them were shipped to the 
     United States through Philadelphia and Brooklyn, N.Y., 
     according to the Port Import Export Reporting Service. At 
     other times of the year, Ivory Coast cocoa beans are 
     delivered to Camden, N.J., Norfolk, Va., and San Francisco.
       From the ports, the beans are shipped to cocoa processors. 
     America's biggest are ADM Cocoa in Milwaukee, a subsidiary of 
     Decatur, Ill.-based Archer Daniels Midland; Barry Callebaut, 
     which has its headquarters in Zurich, Switzerland; 
     Minneapolis-based Cargill; and Nestle USA of Glendale, 
     Calif., a subsidiary of the Swiss food giant.
       But by the time the beans reach the processors, those 
     picked by slaves and those harvested by free field hands have 
     been jumbled together in warehouses, ships, trucks and rail 
     cars. By the time they reach consumers in America or Europe, 
     free beans and slave beans are so thoroughly blended that 
     there is no way to know which chocolate products taste of 
     slavery and which do not.
       Even the Chocolate Manufacturers Association, a trade group 
     for American chocolate makers, acknowledges that slaves are 
     harvesting cocoa on some Ivory Coast farms.

[[Page 12271]]

       And a 1998 report from UNICEF, the United Nations 
     Children's Fund, concluded that some Ivory Coast farmers use 
     enslaved children, many of them from the poorer neighboring 
     countries of Mali, Burkina Faso, Benin and Togo. A report by 
     the Geneva, Switzerland-based International Labor 
     Organization, released June 15, found that trafficking in 
     children is widespread in West Africa.


                  some of the bags were taller than me

       Aly Diabate and 18 other boys labored on a 494-acre farm, 
     very large by Ivory Coast standards, in the southwestern part 
     of the country. Their days began when the sun rose, which at 
     this time of year in Ivory Coast is a few minutes after 6 
     a.m. They finished work about 6:30 in the evening, just 
     before nightfall, trudging home to a dinner of burned 
     bananas. A treat would be yams seasoned with saltwater 
     ``gravy.''
       After dinner, the boys were ordered into a 24-by-20-foot 
     room, where they slept on wooden planks. The window was 
     covered with hardened mud except for a baseball-size hole to 
     let some air in. ``Once we entered the room, nobody was 
     allowed to go out,'' said Mamadou Traore, a thin, frail youth 
     with serious brown eyes who is 19 now. ``Le Gros gave us cans 
     to urinate. He locked the door and kept the key.''
       ``We didn't cry, we didn't scream,'' said Aly. ``We though 
     we had been sold, but we weren't sure.'' The boys became sure 
     one day when Le Gros walked up to Mamadou and ordered him to 
     work harder. ``I bought each of you for 25,000 francs'' 
     (about $35), the farmer said, according to Mamadou. ``So you 
     have to work harder to reimburse me.''
       Aly was barely 4 feet tall when he was sold into slavery, 
     and he had a hard time carrying the heavy bags of cocoa 
     beans. ``Some of the bags were taller than me,'' he said. 
     ``It took two people to put the bag on my head. And when you 
     didn't hurry, you were beaten.'' You can still see the faint 
     scars on his back, right shoulder and left arm. ``They said 
     he wasn't working very hard,'' said Mamadou.
       ``The beatings were a part of my life,'' Aly said. 
     ``Anytime they loaded you with bags and you fell while 
     carrying them, nobody helped you. Instead, they beat you and 
     beat you until you picked it up again.
       Le Gros, whose name is Lenikpo Yeo, denied that he paid for 
     the boys who worked for him, although Ivory Coast farmers 
     often pay a ``finder's fee'' to someone who delivers workers 
     to them. He also denied that the boys were underfed, locked 
     up at night or forced to work more than 12 hours a day 
     without breaks. He said they were treated well, and that he 
     paid for their medical treatment. ``When I go hunting, when I 
     get a kill, I divide it in half--one for my family and the 
     other for them. Even if I kill a gazelle, the workers come 
     and share it.''
       He denied beating any of the boys. ``I've never, ever laid 
     hands on any one of my workers,'' Le Gros said. ``Maybe I 
     called them bad words if I was angry. That's the worst I 
     did.'' Le Gros said a Malian overseer beat one boy who had 
     run away, but he said he himself did not order any beatings.


                             a boy escapes

       One day early last year, a boy named Oumar Kone was caught 
     trying to escape. One of Le Gros' overseers beat him, said 
     the other boys and local authorities. A few days later, Oumar 
     ran away again, and this time he escaped. He told elders in 
     the local Malian immigrant community what was happening on Le 
     Gros' farm. They called Abdoulaye Macko, who was then the 
     Malian consul general in Bouake, a town north of Daloa, in 
     the heart of Ivory Coasts's cocoa- and coffee-growing region. 
     Macko went to the farm with several police officers, and he 
     found the 19 boys and young men there. Aly, the youngest, was 
     13. The oldest was 21.
       ``They were tired, slim, they were not smiling.'' Macko 
     said. ``Except one child was not there. This one, his face 
     showed what was happening. He was sick; he had (excrement) in 
     his pants. He was lying on the ground, covered with cacao 
     leaves because they were sure he was dying. He was almost 
     dead. . . . He had been severely beaten.''
       According to medical records, other boys had healed scars 
     as well as open, infected wounds all over their bodies. 
     Police freed the boys, and a few days later the Malian 
     consulate in Bouake sent them all home to their villages in 
     Mali. The sick boy was treated at a local hospital, and then 
     he was sent home, too.
       Le Gros was charged with assault against children and 
     suppressing the liberty of people. The latter crime carries a 
     five- to 10-year prison sentence and a hefty fine, said 
     Daleba Rouba, attorney general for the region. ``In Ivorian 
     law, and adult who orders a minor to hit and hurt somebody is 
     automatically responsible as if he has committed the act,'' 
     said Rouba. ``Whether or not Le Gros did the beatings himself 
     or ordered somebody, he is liable.'' Le Gros spent 24 days in 
     jail, and today he is a free man pending a court hearing that 
     is scheduled for Thursday.
       He said the case against Le Gros is weak because the 
     witnesses against him have all been sent back to Mali. ``If 
     the Malian authorizes are willing to cooperate, if they can 
     bring two or three of the children back as witnesses, my case 
     will be stronger,'' Rouba said. Mamadou Diarra, the Malian 
     consul general in Bouake, said he would look into the matter.


                           official responses

       Child trafficking experts say inadequate legislation, 
     ignorance of the law, poor law enforcement, porous borders, 
     police corruption and a shortage of resources help perpetuate 
     the problem of child slavery in Ivory Coast. Only 12 
     convicted slave traders are serving time in Ivorian prisons. 
     Another eight, convicted in absentia, are on the lam.
       Ivorian officials have found scores of enslaved children 
     from Mali and Burkina Faso and sent them home, and they have 
     asked the International Labor Organization, a global workers' 
     rights agency, to help them conduct a child-labor survey 
     that's expected to be completed this year. But they continue 
     to blame the problem on immigrant farmers from Mali and on 
     world cocoa prices that have fallen almost 24 percent since 
     1996, from 67 cents a pound to 51 cents, forcing impoverished 
     farmers to use the cheapest labor they can find.
       Ivory Coast Agriculture Minister Alfonse Douaty calls child 
     slavery a marginal ``clandestine phenomenon'' that exists on 
     only a handful of the country's more than 600,000 cocoa and 
     coffee farms. ``Those who do this are hidden, well hidden,'' 
     said Douaty. He said his government is clamping down on child 
     traffickers by beefing up border patrols and law enforcement, 
     and running education campaigns to boost awareness of anti-
     slavery laws and efforts.
       Douaty said child labor in Ivory Coast should not be called 
     slavery, because the word conjures up images of chains and 
     whips. He prefers the term ``indentured labor.''
       Ivory Coast authorities ordered Le Gros to pay Aly and the 
     other boys a total of 4.3 million African Financial Community 
     francs (about $6,150) for their time as indentured laborers. 
     Aly got 125,000 francs (about $180) for the 18 months he 
     worked on the cocoa farm.
       Aly bought himself the very thing the trader who enslaved 
     him promised: a bicycle. It has a light, a yellow horn and 
     colorful bottle caps in the spokes. he rides it everywhere.

  I cannot read the entire article, but I will just read a few 
sentences, where it indicates 43 percent of the world's cocoa beans 
come from small scattered farms in poor West African countries like 
Ivory Coast where harvesting of the crop is done by boys who were sold 
or tricked into slavery. They talk about 15,000 children ages 9 to 12 
sold into forced labor and that it takes 400 or so beans to make one 
pound of chocolate. The boys who pick these beans do not know what 
chocolate tastes like because they never have a chance to eat the final 
product.
  The beans that they harvest go to places like Hershey, Pennsylvania; 
Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and San Francisco. America's biggest users of 
these beans are ADM Cocoa in Milwaukee, a subsidiary of Illinois-based 
Archer Daniels Midland; Barry Callebaut, which has its headquarters in 
Zurich, Switzerland; Minneapolis-based Cargill; and Nestle USA of 
Glendale, California, a subsidiary of the Swiss food giant.
  It talks about these boys being beaten and held, being tired, slim 
with no smiles, and many boys having healed scars as well as open 
infected wounds all over their bodies. It talks about the reasons that 
there is no law enforcement in the countries which are the suppliers. 
And it talks about the amount of money being made by the firms that use 
this kind of indentured servitude.
  I think $250,000 out of a multibillion-dollar budget is almost 
nothing to ask to have proper labeling of a product. If we can have 
happy faces on carpets that come from the Indian subcontinent, we can 
certainly have proper labeling of chocolate products that come into 
this country from places like Ivory Coast. I really want to thank the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), who is a member of the Committee 
on International Relations, for bringing this issue to us.
  It is always difficult for us to get labeling legislation passed by 
this subcommittee and full committee, but, my goodness, do we not have 
a moral responsibility to do this? It is within budget, what he is 
asking to do. It is asking FDA to meet not only its scientific 
responsibilities to this country but its moral responsibilities.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Engel amendment and 
commend the gentleman for bringing this again to the House floor so the 
American people can understand what is going on.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page 12272]]

  I think that the gentlewoman from Ohio made two very, very good 
points at the end. Throughout her speech she made good points, but I 
want to raise two that she made at the end. This is only $250,000. It 
is a very, very small amount, and such a small amount to ensure that 
the cocoa and the chocolate in this country has not come to be by slave 
labor of children. I think that is a very, very small price to pay.
  There is a moral responsibility as the gentlewoman points out, a 
moral responsibility for us not to allow slavery, child slavery, in the 
21st century. This is a small amount of money, it is in the budget, it 
will not do any harm whatsoever; and I think that it will certainly 
bring us to the point that this Congress can look with pride and say 
that we are making an attempt to stop something that we thought did not 
exist anymore and only now are we being made aware of the fact that 
slavery is continuing to rear its ugly head in the year 2001.
  I want to just again urge my colleagues to support this. This should 
have bipartisan support because again we are talking about children and 
we are talking about slavery. I do not think the American people would 
want to knowingly eat chocolate or cocoa that was harvested by children 
who have been tricked into slavery.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Engel) will be postponed.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Isakson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bass, Chairman pro tempore of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
2330) 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, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________