[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 17830-17879]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into 
the

[[Page 17831]]

Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 2673) making appropriations for 
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and 
Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for 
other purposes; and pending that motion, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that general debate be confined to the bill, and be limited to 
not to exceed 1 hour, the time to be equally divided and controlled by 
the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and myself.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla).
  The motion was agreed to.

                              {time}  1205


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 2673, with Mr. Dreier in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  By unanimous consent, the first reading of the bill was dispensed 
with.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the unanimous consent agreement, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) 
each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla).
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring before the House today the fiscal 
year 2004 appropriations bill for Agriculture, Rural Development, the 
Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies.
  My goal this year has been to produce a bipartisan bill, and I 
believe we have done a good job in reaching that goal.
  The Subcommittee began work on this bill with the submission of the 
President's Budget on February 3rd. We had ten public hearings 
beginning on February 26th, and we completed our hearings on March 
20th. The transcripts of these hearings, the Administration's official 
statements, the detailed budget requests, several thousand questions 
for the record and the statements of Members and the public are all 
contained in eight hearing volumes.
  The Subcommittee and full Committee marked up the bill on June 17th 
and June 25th, respectively.
  We have tried very hard to accommodate the requests of Members, and 
to provide increases for critical programs. We received more than 2,380 
individual requests for specific spending, from almost every member of 
the House. Reading all of the mail I received, I can confirm to you 
that the interest in this bill is completely bipartisan. However, I 
would point out that my own support for a member's needs is dependent 
on that member's support of the Committee in general, and of this bill 
in particular.
  This bill does have very limited increases over fiscal year 2003, or 
over the budget request, for programs that have always enjoyed strong 
bipartisan support. Those increases include:
  Agricultural Research Service, $39 million above the request.
  Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, $38 million above last 
year, and $31 million above the request.
  Food Safety and Inspection Service, $30 million above last year.
  Farm Service Agency, $33 million above last year.
  Natural Resources Conservation Service, $23 million over last year.
  Rural Community Advancement Program, $223 million above the request.
  Food and Drug Administration, $14 million over last year.
  Mr. Chairman, we all refer to this bill as an agriculture bill, but 
it does far more than assisting basic agriculture. It also supports 
human nutrition, the environment, and food, drug and medical safety. 
This is a bill that will deliver benefits to every one of our 
constituents every day, no matter what kind of district they represent.
  I would say to all Members that they can support this bill and tell 
all of their constituents that they voted to improve their lives while 
maintaining fiscal responsibility.
  The bill is a bipartisan product with a lot of hard work and input 
from both sides of the aisle. I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Florida (Chairman Young), and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), 
who serves as the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the 
Committee on Appropriations. I would also like to thank all my 
subcommittee colleagues: the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh); the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston); the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Nethercutt); the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham); the gentlewoman 
from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson); the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode); 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood); the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro); the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey); 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr); and the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Boyd).
  In particular, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur), the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, for all 
her good work on this bill this year and the years in the past.
  Mr. Chairman I would like to include at this point in the Record 
tabular material relating to the bill.

[[Page 17832]]





[[Page 17833]]



[[Page 17834]]



[[Page 17835]]



[[Page 17836]]



[[Page 17837]]



[[Page 17838]]



[[Page 17839]]



[[Page 17840]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, at a time of recession, rising unemployment in our 
country, the currency fluctuations that are affecting our markets 
internationally and great dependency on the Federal Government by our 
farm sector for economic survival, this bill fails to meet the needs of 
today's economy, including in rural America, for a countercyclical 
boost.
  It has been a great pleasure working with our chairman, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), in trying to do the best with the allocation 
that we were afforded by the full committee; but it is very important 
as we proceed today to place on the record not only the condition of 
rural America but how this country and the government of this country 
is responding to it.
  The allocation that we received forced our committee to produce a 
bill that is nearly $1 billion under last year's level, indeed $872 
million. This situation exists partly because of the fault of the 
administration which submitted a request to us that did not provide 
support in many critical areas. In part, it is the fault of this 
Republican Congress which adopted a budget resolution that did not 
recognize the vital role that agriculture plays as a pillar of our 
economy. In fact, the allocation, as I said, for this bill is well 
below the administration's request as well as last year's level.
  As a result, the bill underinvests in rural America. Surely in value-
added production, where the future lies, it cripples our producers' 
efforts to earn more from the marketplace and less from support 
payments that continue to be forked over by the billions. The bill 
fails to meet the needs of other Americans who depend on agencies in 
the bill for nutrition, food safety, and other important services.
  Technically the bill provides $17.005 billion for discretionary 
programs, and that is about a percent below the budget request, but 5 
percent below the 2003 level of $17.877 billion, a most astonishing set 
of cutbacks in America's leading domestic industry that still maintains 
a trade surplus in global markets. I might mention, if Members think 
about the total of our entire bill, about $17 billion, we are spending 
that much in 4 months in Iraq. According to what Secretary Rumsfeld has 
told Congress, we are spending about $4 billion a month, twice as much 
as we anticipated, to try to feed hungry people and deal with health 
clinics and all the related expenditures in keeping our troops well 
supplied. If we think about what we are asking for in this bill versus 
what we are spending in other places in the world, we can call into 
question what has been brought to the floor in this package.
  Now, among the funds and programs that are underfunded or at risk of 
inadequate support are farm loans, rural development, domestic food 
programs, international food aid, research, which is so important to 
the future, the Food & Drug Administration, such as approving medical 
devices, and a number of mandatory programs, for which funding is 
blocked. Funding for many new initiatives established in the farm bill 
to lead American agriculture into the 21st century is, once again, 
deferred.
  And in some other accounts, it is highly likely that additional funds 
may be needed when this bill goes to conference, but those funds simply 
will not be available.
  Let us talk about rural America. It is a part of our country on life 
support. We have a crisis in the rural parts of America born of 
concentration inside our market that is supposed to be competitive. As 
well, we have a crisis of diminishing U.S. exports. Even though our 
agricultural trade surplus at least helps to try to hold up our trade 
accounts, nonetheless, over the years we have had fewer agricultural 
exports and more imports coming into this country. So, agricultural 
America is beginning to tilt toward the negative in the same way as 
manufacturing America in terms of our trade accounts. We have a crisis 
in rural America of ignoring investment in new value-added developments 
such as bioenergy production in which this bill severely underinvests. 
The economic crisis in agriculture has social consequences in crime and 
social instability in the part of America that used to be called the 
heartland and always regarded as the cherished repository of our most 
fundamental values of free holding, of family, of faith, of community, 
and of stewardship.
  The New York Times ran a powerful article in December entitled 
``Pastoral Poverty: The Seeds of Decline.'' It detailed the systematic 
decline of the social fabric across rural America. Here are some of the 
conditions that were mentioned: the rate of serious crime in 
predominantly rural States such as Kansas and Oklahoma is 50 percent 
higher than in places like New York State where we have some of the 
largest metropolitan areas in the country; bank robberies are most 
likely in towns of 10,000 to 25,000 people. The article went on to talk 
about people in rural areas making much less than their urban 
counterparts and much more likely to have only minimum-wage jobs.
  There were 300 times more seizures of methamphetamine labs in Iowa in 
1999 than in New York and New Jersey combined, based on Drug 
Enforcement Administration figures.
  So if everything is so great, why is the social fabric 
disintegrating? The economic factors that lead to this social 
disintegration are very clear, and they have been accelerating for a 
number of years. This bill will only help exacerbate them because today 
it is no secret that all that is holding up rural America is Federal 
subsidy. Fifty cents of every farm dollar today is earned from the 
mailbox when the farmer goes out to get his subsidy check, not from the 
market.

                              {time}  1215

  This bill could really do something to turn that around. It fails to 
do that.
  More farmers and ranchers are depending on off-farm income to 
supplement an economy that is not working for them. USDA's economists 
recently reported that more than half of all farm operators have off-
farm income, and when other household members are added in the off-farm 
income level jumps to 85 percent. So farming is becoming more of a 
hobby-oriented activity out there because you cannot earn your income 
unless you have inherited an enormous amount from past generations and 
even then you are trying to hold up your current debt level. The market 
is not providing real income without the Federal subsidy.
  The stresses of rural life were also illustrated in a story last year 
about an Iowa program to provide mental health counseling to struggling 
farmers and their families. Surely this economic stress has an impact 
on people's ability to weather this economy over a number of years. But 
the funding so essential to help farmers make it in the market, in the 
competitive marketplace, is severely undermined in this bill. This is 
true with farm loan programs. Which help farmers to buy a farm or 
operate a farm; with rural development programs, which help both 
individuals and communities with homeownership, so essential to helping 
move our economy out of recession; water and sewer needs, which are 
hard investments that lead to growth; telecommunications and other 
vital services so necessary to help rural America jump-start into the 
private economy. All of these needed programs are either cut or fail to 
be funded in this bill. The bill falls far short of the true need.
  Let us go through them. Farm loans. Overall, the bill cuts farm loans 
by 5 percent below the request, providing $173 million less in loans. 
For three critical programs, farm ownership guaranteed loans, farm 
operating direct loans, and farm operating subsidized guaranteed loans, 
the bill provides about a half a billion dollars less in loans than 
last year. That is a 20 percent cut. That is a cut in investment for 
our future.
  Many other programs are cut. The business and industry guaranteed 
loan program is cut by 38 percent. This is where the new jobs will come 
from in

[[Page 17841]]

rural America. Yet, in a time of recession, the administration and 
their congressional allies are cutting that by over a third.
  Single family guaranteed home loans are 4 percent below the 2003 
request. And think about that. That is $120 million less to offer 
borrowers at a time when the housing industry is the only industry that 
is out there that is holding this economy up as it hemorrhages jobs in 
other sectors.
  The bill eliminates funding for the Rural Telephone Bank, which made 
$175 million of loans last year in 23 States. And we know that the 
utilities and the communications infrastructure of rural America is not 
at the same level as in our metropolitan areas. I think that is a very 
backward-looking cut.
  What about water and wastewater disposal grants, one of the core 
programs of rural development? Every single State in this Union has 
people, lots of people, backed up to try to get approval for these 
programs. The bill does provide more funding than the administration's 
request, but it is $43 million below what was spent last year and 
almost $250 million below the level that numerous Members of Congress 
asked of this committee to meet the realistic needs of rural 
development.
  Grants for distance learning and telemedicine and broadband are $24 
million below this year's level.
  I do not have to tell anybody out there about the shortage of 
physicians and medical information in rural America compared to urban 
and suburban America.
  Funding for electric loan programs is nearly $1 billion below this 
year, a 20 percent reduction. How does that really help development 
across rural America?
  Let us now look at our domestic and international programs. They are 
underfunded. During this year, Democrats focused on the record demand 
for domestic food, such as women, infants and children's coupons and 
food stamps. Noting enormous lines at soup kitchens and food pantries 
this winter, we fought very hard for temporary emergency assistance for 
food, and for these food banks across America. The bill does not 
respond adequately to these concerns, that is for sure.
  Now, with the major rebuilding efforts that America is going to have 
to make in Iraq and Afghanistan, food will be critical to stabilizing 
the situation there; and we know that this bill falls far short of what 
is needed long-term. It simply cannot hold. We cannot meet these 
commitments without increasing the funding levels in these programs.
  Let us now look at our domestic food programs. I mentioned the 
Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program. It is $10 million below 
the new authorized level in the farm bill. All you have to do is go out 
to the food banks in your region to see what the need really is and 
hear the concerns that have been expressed by food bank directors and 
by human service directors and church leaders across this country. 
Funding for the Women, Infants and Children's Program is reduced below 
the administration request. The Commodity Supplemental Food Program is 
almost $20 million below this year. These are all programs that help 
keep people whole in bad economic times.
  Neither the administration request nor the bill that is before us 
today adequately provides funding for the Senior Farmers Market 
Nutrition Program, despite the fact that applications in recent years 
have far outpaced available funds.
  The Food and Drug Administration in this bill receives nearly $11 
million less than what was requested. What does that mean? It means 
that we will not have full funding to implement the generic drug 
program, the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, the over-the-
counter drug program and the patient safety and adverse event reporting 
initiative. The bill will also halt work on the Arkansas regional lab 
and reduce funding for ongoing maintenance at Food and Drug 
Administration facilities by 25 percent.
  An area of interest to many Members is medical device funding. The 
administration made an agreement in 2002 with the medical device 
industry and authorizing committees here for new industry user fees in 
exchange for a set level of discretionary funding each year for the 
program. Under the statute, if total discretionary funds fall short of 
the required level over a several-year period, the program sunsets. But 
despite the fact that it was a party to this agreement, the 
administration completely failed to live up to its part of the deal 
last year and this year and did not request the required funds. At 
least 46 Members of both parties requested that the full amount for 
devices be provided.
  This bill provides an increase of $9 million over the request for the 
medical device program, but this is still short of the required level 
in order to really make the approval program work.
  I wanted to say a word about mandatory programs because the bill 
includes 10 provisions cutting mandatory agricultural programs by $540 
million. These are programs that provide support for rural 
firefighters; dam rehabilitation; renewable energy, and what could be 
more important to our country than that when we hemorrhage in terms of 
our ability to balance our trade accounts because of imported 
petroleum; conservation, which was a promise made in the recent farm 
bill; telecommunications and research. These cuts in those mandatory 
programs will have a real impact across rural America.
  The Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program is cut by $95 million, 
more than twice the cut in this year's bill, despite a rapidly growing 
number of dams reaching the end of their useful lives across our 
country. Two years ago, the Natural Resource and Conservation Service 
had identified 1,450 dams in need of rehabilitation at a cost of about 
a half a billion dollars, $500 million. We have already spent that much 
money in the first half of July in Iraq, but we are not willing to 
spend that money here at home for infrastructure improvements.
  While the bill does provide an increase of $20 million in 
discretionary funding, the cut in mandatory funding makes it much 
harder to meet identified needs. It is estimated there is a backlog of 
over $80 million just to finish projects currently under way, so 
funding on both the discretion and the mandatory sides are needed.
  The bill eliminates the funding for rural firefighters. The bill 
eliminates all funding for the conservation security program. And in 
the Wetlands Reserve Program, so essential to assuring a healthy 
ecosystem, the bill cuts new enrollment in the program by a fifth, by 
20 percent, which means that we will have so many fewer people who will 
be able to participate in a program that has a backlog of 736,000 
acres.
  In the EQIP Program, the bill reduces funding by $25 million; and 
that means that there will be 1,450 producers who will not be able to 
get EQIP funding this year.
  In renewable energy, I think the bill is terribly ill-advised in 
zeroing out funding in a sector where America must restore her 
independence.
  And in value-added grants, which the farm bill asked for, this bill 
zeros out support for the new jobs of the future that could be created 
across rural America.
  In broadband loans for telecommunications, the bill eliminates all 
funding for this authorized program.
  And for the initiative for future agriculture and food systems, the 
bill cuts $120 million from this competitive grant program which is 
designed to do research in critical areas such as genomics, food 
safety, food technology, human nutrition, new and alternative uses and 
production of agricultural commodities and products, agricultural 
biotechnology, where so much of our future lies and the world's future, 
natural resource management, including precision agriculture, and farm 
efficiency and profitability.
  Other shortcomings in the bill I will quickly mention. Country-of-
origin labeling. The bill prevents the implementation of origin labels 
for meat and meat products. This is a basic consumer right-to-know 
issue which the House unanimously supported when it instructed its 
conferees on the farm

[[Page 17842]]

bill to support country-of-origin labeling for both meat and perishable 
products.
  In terms of the provisions for meatpacker audits, the administration 
asked Congress for $1 million for the Grain Inspection, Packers and 
Stockyards Administration to audit the four largest steer and heifer 
meatpackers for compliance with that act. This might sound routine, but 
it is not. This would be the first time in the 82-year history of the 
Packers and Stockyards Act that the agency has required a large packer 
audit, but the bill conveniently does not provide the funding. Gosh, I 
wonder why.
  And then in the food safety and inspection provisions, the bill 
provides about $12 million less than requested for the Food Safety and 
Inspection Service.
  In terms of research, and this is really the seed corn for the 
future, the bill provides only half of the funding for the upgrading of 
security at our agricultural research labs.
  In addition to that, the Cooperative Research Education and Extension 
Service, overall funding is over the request of the administration but 
$22 million lower than this year's level. As a result, many important 
research institutions and activities, including our 1890 and 1994 
institutions, are shortchanged. In addition, at least 95 Members of 
this House of both parties asked for a 5 percent increase in these 
research formula funds, but the bill does not provide this.
  Many Members also asked for $200 million for funding the national 
research initiative, but the bill provides only $149 million.
  The Economic Research Service and National Agricultural Statistics 
Service would receive almost $12 million less than requested, forcing 
the postponement of important initiatives such as genomics research and 
improvement of statistical information in our New England States, 
Hawaii and Alaska.
  In concluding these opening remarks, I would just like to summarize 
by saying that budgets reveal priorities. This year we are seeing that 
the Republican Party in this House is willing to put huge tax breaks 
for the most well-off in our society and also military action around 
the world ahead of almost every other economic and social value in our 
country. Rural America needs to have market-oriented incentives, not 
dole for farmers from coast to coast. This bill is an important answer 
to the situation confronting our Nation in one of the most vital 
sectors of our economy, and we should not shortchange the future by the 
underinvestment that this bill represents.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), ranking member of our full 
committee.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, frankly, this bill is a mixed bag. We have a 
number of items in this bill that I support; but as is the case with so 
many other appropriations this year, our ability to do many things to 
help strengthen the economy of rural America is substantially crippled 
by the fact that our majority friends in this House have already 
decided to put all of their eggs in the tax cut basket, and that means 
that there is very little available for a variety of other activities 
whether we are talking about education or health care or in the case of 
this bill whether we are talking about rural sewer and water grants, 
rural development programs, FDA, name it.
  I am distressed by some of these reductions. The gentlewoman from 
Ohio has already mentioned them. But just as examples, I would again 
cite inadequate funding for farm loans, for rural development, for 
rural water and sewer, for distance learning and telemedicine. We have 
$540 million in limitation on mandatory programs, and there are a 
number of other items.
  But I would like to address just two other points. Number one, I am 
distressed that this bill contains language which prevents labeling for 
meat, country-of-origin labeling. I think our domestic producers have a 
right to be able to communicate to our domestic consumers whether or 
not food products are produced in this country or somewhere else. I 
think our consumers have a right to know that information, and I think 
that very clearly our special interests have weighed in and seen to it 
that this House will not do its duty to the public by preserving that 
labeling.
  Secondly, I would like to discuss for a moment the amendment which 
purports to allow the reimportation of drugs into this country by 
senior citizens and some others. That is a well-meaning amendment, I 
will grant, and in the past I have been tempted on some occasions to 
support it myself. But I would simply point out that I think that this 
amendment is not likely to produce the effect that some would hope. 
First of all, the law requires that for a drug to be reimported it has 
to meet certain standards, and the problem is that our domestic 
pharmaceutical companies are very clever, and they can find hundreds of 
ways to prevent those drugs from meeting reimportation standards. They 
can prevent the use of a label which would meet U.S. standards and, 
therefore, prevent reimportation of a drug.
  They can omit language required in the U.S. on those labels as an 
easy way to prevent those drugs from being reimported. They can put a 
drug in a form that is not time released when it is provided in the 
United States that it be in a time-released form. And so there are many 
ways which the intent of this language can be frustrating.
  Secondly, I do not believe that this provision will have any 
significant impact on overall drug prices still charged to American 
consumers. And there are a number of other reasons which I will not 
take the time of the House now to go into, which make it quite clear 
that while this proposal is aimed at enabling seniors to reimport those 
drugs, the fact is that our domestic manufacturers, I think, are going 
to easily frustrate this language.
  So I would say to the Members to vote however they are going to vote 
on it. It is not going to have much effect. I respect the intention, 
but that is about it. But I would simply say that if we want to do 
something real on prescription drugs, we will simply pass an expanded 
reliable, adequate, affordable prescription drug benefit under Medicare 
so that none of our seniors are reduced to the necessity to drive to 
Canada every couple of months to get a supply. That is what this 
Congress would do if it was not owned lock, stock and barrel by the 
pharmaceutical industry on this issue, but unfortunately it is and so 
it will not. And we will be stuck with these very tepid alternatives to 
meaningful action.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), ranking member of the authorizing 
committee.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill. I commend 
the chairwoman, the chairman of the subcommittee, and the full 
committee chairman for their work in a very difficult task. They were 
handed a very difficult situation in which they would take the amount 
of revenue available for the much-needed rural development, 
agricultural conservation issues and did the best they could under a 
very difficult situation. But I commend them for that action and look 
forward to working with them throughout the process to do as good a job 
for American agriculture that continues to feed the United States.
  We have the most abundant food supply, the best quality of food, the 
safest food supply at the lowest cost to our people than any other 
country in the world; and what we are about to debate today is what has 
contributed to that over the years. I urge the support of the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill.
  Once again, legislation relating to agriculture policy demonstrates 
the progress that can be made when a broadly-inclusive, bipartisan 
approach is taken towards solving national problems.

[[Page 17843]]

  America's farmers and ranchers continue to struggle to survive as 
they face the global market. But while particular problem areas 
continue to plague the agricultural economy, overall there is reason 
for optimism that recovery in the farm and ranch sector is taking hold.
  The Agriculture Department's Economic Research Service recently 
forecast that 2003 net farm income will be $46.2 billion; this is 
significantly higher than 2002, with both crop and livestock receipts 
predicted to increase. The 2002 Farm Bill--which was developed on a 
bipartisan basis, passed overwhelmingly in both Houses, and signed by 
the President--is part of the story for this improvement.
  Mr. Chairman, this view of recovery in agriculture has to be 
qualified to a significant degree, however. Milk, livestock, and many 
crop prices have not recovered to the degree that would allow producers 
to resume significant capital investments. Also, much of the 
improvement shown in the net farm income figure is attributable to 
timing changes associated with programs enacted by last year's Farm 
Bill. And, of course, the rural economy continually must adjust to the 
rapid consolidation that continues to occur in farming and ranching. 
And while these statistics demonstrate that conditions have improved 
for some of agriculture, many producers still find themselves faced 
with very difficult financial conditions.
  So while total victory can't be claimed, I stress the point that 
inclusive development of agricultural policy has led to more optimistic 
conditions for the agricultural economy. Perhaps a similar approach to 
general economic policy would remove some of the doubt that clouds 
prospects for our economy in general.
  Mr. Chairman, this partial improvement in the agricultural economy 
has been noticed in the cities. On June 16, the Wall Street Journal 
reported that the farm economy ``is in recovery and moving toward 
strength.'' The article discusses the very difficult times that have 
afflicted agriculture for the last five years, and cites rising 
commodity prices, a devalued dollar, improved weather, and resurgent 
imports as reasons to be bullish for agriculture.
  But the article also makes it clear why the cities are taking note: 
the improving situation is a key factor behind improved economic 
conditions in middle America--which is recovering more quickly than the 
rest of the nation. I'll quote from the article: ``While farmers by 
themselves are a tiny part of the economy, they have a broad impact on 
it. The industries that sell to farmers and use farm products account 
for 12.3 percent of the country's gross domestic product and 16.7 
percent of jobs, according to the Agriculture Department.''
  Mr. Chairman, the Wall Street Journal and many other big city 
newspapers criticized the Farm Bill when it was passed. But if they 
read their own pages today, they'll see that this country has made a 
wise investment, and that the returns go well beyond the farmstead.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill before the House today provides the funding 
needed to implement the farm bill's programs. These include the 
commodity income support programs, the greatest expansion in farm 
conservation spending in our history, the Food Stamp program, and 
foreign food aid. It also funds important research efforts--investments 
in our nation's future; crucial pest and disease eradication programs, 
and rural economic development.
  Mr. Chairman, fiscally speaking these are tough times and the 
Appropriations Committee labored under very tight constraints in the 
development of this bill. While being diligent and confining themselves 
to their allocation, they have struck a responsible balance among the 
competing priorities. I congratulate Mr. Bonilla and Ms. Kaptur, 
Chairman Young and my colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and I urge 
my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, today, I regretfully rise in 
opposition to this bill.
  I did not support the Farm Security Act that was signed into law last 
year. But now that it has been signed into law it should be properly 
funded and this bill does not do that.
  In fact, some good programs are no longer funded under this bill, 
including the Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Improvements program 
and the Conservation Security Program. Not funding these programs 
steers our agriculture policy in the wrong direction.
  The Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Improvements would help 
farmers improve energy efficiency and even sell back energy created on 
their farms. This program would help farmers become more profitable as 
the margins on their commodities get smaller. But this program, which 
was supported by Congress last year, is zeroed out.
  The Conservation Security Program has provided an incentive program 
for farmers to improve the ecological management of working lands. This 
program rewarded farmers for taking proper care of their land to 
prevent erosion and to help keep the land fertile. This often means not 
maximizing the full profitability of the land during a growing season 
to ensure that the land will continue to be productive in the future. 
Again, this is a program that was supported by Congress last year but 
the Majority Party in the House has decided not to fund it.
  There is a long list of other programs that are cut: From the Women, 
Infant, and Children program, which helps insure that young children 
and their mothers get the nutrition they need; to Farm Ownership Loans, 
which help farmers and ranchers buy their own facilities; to the Rural 
Housing Service, which helps rural residents obtain adequate and 
affordable housing; and the list goes on and on.
  The annual Agriculture Appropriation Bill often is not very 
controversial and I have supported it in the past. But this year's bill 
will hurt America's farmers and ranchers because it doesn't provide the 
funding needed. This is particularly true for those farmers and 
ranchers who are still reeling from the effects of drought.
  There are a lot of critical programs that are funded in this bill and 
I would like to support the bill, but on balance it does not do enough 
and therefore I cannot.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit the testimony of 
Wenonah Hauter of Public Citizen before the House Agriculture 
Appropriations Subcommittee. This testimony was inadvertently omitted 
from the printed hearings of the Subcommittee.

 Testimony of Wenonah Hauter Director of the Critical Mass Energy and 
                   Environment Program Public Citizen

       Chairman Bonilla, Ranking Member Kaptur and Members of the 
     Subcommittee, my name is Wenonah Hauter. I am the Director of 
     Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and Environment 
     Program. As you know, Public Citizen is a national consumer 
     organization founded by Ralph Nader in 1971. We represent 
     150,000 members. We welcome this opportunity to present our 
     views on the FY 2004 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
     Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill.


            USDA--Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)

       We are adamantly opposed to the Administration's proposal 
     to collect $122 million in user fees to recover the cost of 
     providing inspection services beyond an approved eight-hour 
     primary shift. We believe that such a proposal could 
     compromise the effectiveness of FSIS inspectors. Furthermore, 
     FSIS has already taken action to de-list foreign 
     establishments that had been previously approved to export 
     their meat and poultry products to the United States on the 
     basis that inspection services were paid by the companies 
     involved instead of by the foreign government. Implementation 
     of the Administration's proposal to institute user fees would 
     be hypocritical.
       Additionally, we are concerned that the current proposal to 
     hire approximately 80 more FSIS inspectors will be inadequate 
     to fill current vacancies and to make up for previous year's 
     cuts. We recommend that at least 200 line inspectors be hired 
     this year.
       The alarming number and magnitude of meat and poultry 
     recalls in the past year indicate that there are some serious 
     problems with the implementation of the Hazard Analysis 
     Critical Control Points (HAACP) program. We have been arguing 
     for the past three years that HACCP has turned over too much 
     authority to industry to police itself and has severely 
     undercut the ability of FSIS inspection personnel to their 
     jobs. We have heard directly from inspection personnel who 
     state that they are very confused and concerned over their 
     roles in HAACP.
       More troubling is the fact that the economic well-being of 
     companies is placed ahead of the public's welfare by the 
     management at FSIS. In June 2002, we were able to obtain 
     instructions to FSIS inspectors assigned to a large Kansas 
     slaughter plant in which they were admonished that should 
     they err on the side of public health and stop a slaughter 
     line for suspected fecal contamination they could be 
     personally liable for their decision.
       We are also concerned about the failure of supervisors and 
     management to back up FSIS inspectors when they discover food 
     safety hazards. Since last year's massive ConAgra recall, it 
     has come to light that USDA was notified of potential 
     problems at the Greeley, Colorado plant as early as February 
     2002--some three months before the first recall notice went 
     out. Warnings came from John Munsell, president of Montana 
     Quality Foods and Processing, after FSIS personnel assigned 
     to his plant confirmed that the source of contaminated meat 
     ground at Montana Quality Foods and Processing was the 
     ConAgra plant in Greeley, Colorado. Instead of applauding Mr. 
     Munsell and the FSIS personnel for their investigative work, 
     they have been maligned by top FSIS officials and have been 
     told they had no authority to point the finger at ConAgra.
       The same can be said of the Wampler recall. A twenty-year 
     veteran FSIS inspector,

[[Page 17844]]

     Vincent Erthal, had tried to warn his supervisors for several 
     months of the unsanitary conditions at the Wampler plant in 
     Franconia, Pennsylvania. His concerns went unheeded. This 
     fall, the second largest recall in FSIS history was issued 
     for possible Listeria monocytogenes contamination of product 
     coming out of that plant. After much soul-searching, Mr. 
     Erthal decided to come forward to reveal how his attempts to 
     warn FSIS supervision of his concerns were thwarted. Again, 
     instead of backing their own employee, FSIS management has 
     circled the wagons and launched a campaign to discredit Mr. 
     Erthal.
       With all of the problems that FSIS has already experienced 
     with their implementation of HAACP in processing plants, the 
     proposed FY 2004 budget contains language that would expand 
     the HACCP-based Inspection Models Project (HIMP) in slaughter 
     facilities. HIMP is yet another attempt at weakening the 
     authority of FSIS inspection personnel and turning that 
     responsibility over to company personnel. In a December 17, 
     2001 report, staff from the General Accounting Office found 
     glaring methodological deficiencies in FSIS' current pilot 
     project. There has not been any evidence to show that those 
     deficiencies have been addressed. Therefore, we would urge 
     that this expansion of HIMP not go forward until all data 
     from the current project has been evaluated.
       While we applaud additional funds to support food safety 
     education, we believe that the money will actually be used to 
     promote irradiation. In her written remarks to the 
     Subcommittee, Under Secretary for Food Safety Dr. Elsa Murano 
     stated it was her intent to devote resources to educate the 
     public about food irradiation. Her remarks also indicate that 
     she will attempt to blur the definition of pasteurization to 
     include irradiation as part of the education campaign.
       In focus groups conducted for FSIS in 2002, consumers in 
     St. Louis, Missouri; Raleigh, North Carolina; and 
     Philadelphia, Pennsylvania were asked whether they considered 
     irradiation to be a form of pasteurization, and 
     overwhelmingly consumers responded that making such an 
     assertion would be misleading. Those findings corroborated 
     findings from focus groups conducted for the Food and Drug 
     Administration (FDA) in three different cities during the 
     summer of 2001. We urge you not to fund any additional 
     efforts to change labeling requirements for irradiated food 
     by allowing ``pasteurization'' to be used.
       Lastly, we are concerned about the recent revelations that 
     FSIS still has not addressed problems identified by the USDA 
     Inspector General (IG) regarding the agency's reinspection 
     program for imported meat and poultry products. In 2000, the 
     IG noted some 18 deficiencies in the FSIS reinspection 
     program. In her recent audit, the IG stated that FSIS has 
     still not corrected 14 of those deficiencies--even though 
     they had agreed to do so three years ago. In light of the 
     heightened concerns about the security of our food supply, 
     this is unconscionable. We urge you to instruct FSIS to 
     comply with the recommendations in the 2000 Inspector General 
     report.


    usda--food and nutrition service/agricultural marketing service

       The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (the 
     Farm Bill) contains a provision (section 4201 (1)) that 
     directs the Secretary of Agriculture not to prohibit the use 
     of approved food safety technologies in any commodity 
     purchased by the USDA for various government-sponsored 
     nutrition programs, including the National School Lunch and 
     National Breakfast Programs. The USDA has decided this means 
     that they should lift the current ban on the use of 
     irradiation as an intervention for ground beef products 
     purchased for these programs. And, it seems irradiation is 
     the only approved food safety technology they are pursuing.
       Section 4201(l) received no scrutiny from any congressional 
     committee, in either the House or Senate. It never received 
     any floor debate in either the House or Senate. It was placed 
     in the Senate version of the Farm Bill at the last minute as 
     part of a 400-page manager's amendment. The conferees on the 
     Farm Bill never even discussed it in open session.
       On November 22, 2002, the USDA announced that it would 
     solicit comments from the public on the implementation of 
     Section 4201(l) of the Farm Bill and specifically wanted 
     comments on irradiation. The comments are being collected by 
     the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). Of the comments 
     posted on the AMS website as of March 19, 2003, by over a 5 
     to 1 margin, citizens have expressed their opposition to 
     lifting the ban on irradiation--with thousands of comments 
     still left to be posted. Comments opposing such action have 
     come from nearly all fifty states, while those supporting the 
     technology have come primarily from those who have direct 
     ties to the irradiation industry.
       In order to promote this technology, the Food and Nutrition 
     Service (FNS) has funded an irradiation ``education'' program 
     in three Minnesota school districts. The program is being 
     administered by proponents of irradiation--with no access for 
     critics of the technology to present alternative views. In 
     addition, the steering committee for the program is dominated 
     by one irradiation company and its affiliates. In essence, 
     FNS is funding a government-sponsored advertising campaign 
     for one company.
       Recent research indicates that some chemicals formed when 
     certain foods are irradiated may be harmful when consumed. 
     The new studies call into question the long-held position of 
     the FDA and the food industry that irradiated foods are 
     generally safe for human consumption. But the studies confirm 
     research published in 1998 and 2001 showing that 
     concentrations of chemicals called 2-alkylcyclobutanones (or 
     2-ACBs)--which are found only in irradiated foods--caused DNA 
     damage in human cells. Among the new findings, 2-ACBs were 
     shown to promote tumor development in rat colons. The 2-ACBs 
     are formed when foods that contain fat are irradiated, such 
     as beef, chicken, eggs and certain fruits--all of which can 
     legally be irradiated.
       There is even less research into the long-term health 
     effects experienced by children who are exposed to toxic 
     chemicals in foods. Dr. William Au, a toxicologist at the 
     Department of Preventive Medicine and Community Health, 
     University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, has argued 
     that the lack of understanding regarding the ill effects 
     suffered by children who consume toxic chemicals in foods 
     extends to ``the toxicological risk with respect to eating 
     irradiated food.''
       If implemented, Section 4201 (1) will create the largest 
     mass-feeding of irradiated food to children in history. We 
     urge the committee not to fund the purchase of irradiated 
     food for federal government nutrition programs.


                      Food and Drug Administration

       We are concerned about the lack of funding for the Food and 
     Drug Administration (FDA) for import reinspections. Even 
     after the additional funding the agency received in FY 2003 
     to hire more staff to perform food import reinspections, the 
     agency is only capable of reinspecting a paltry 1.3 percent 
     of imported food over which it has jurisdiction. This needs 
     to be addressed with additional funding, with the goal of 
     reaching at least the 20 percent reinspection rate that FSIS 
     is able to perform for imported meat and poultry products. 
     Furthermore, FDA should be granted the same authority that 
     FSIS currently possesses to inspect foreign establishments 
     that can export their food to the United States.
       We are also concerned with the repeated attempts to weaken 
     the labeling for irradiated foods. The FDA has visited this 
     issue repeatedly since 1997--primarily at the direction of 
     Congress. Each time, the FDA finds that consumers do not see 
     eye-to-eye on this issue with the irradiation industry and 
     their supporters in Congress. It seems that there are those 
     who want to keep on trying until we get it wrong.
       In the conference committee report that accompanied the FY 
     2001 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
     Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, the 
     conferees stated: ``The conferees expect FDA to make final 
     the regulations regarding labeling of irradiated foods by 
     March 1, 2002, and report to the House and Senate Committees 
     on Appropriations on the status by November 15, 2000. This 
     agreement changes the dates proposed for final regulations by 
     the House of September 30, 2001, and by the Senate of October 
     30, 2001.''
       In its report to the Appropriations Committees, the FDA 
     explained that it had published an Advanced Notice for 
     Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) in 1999 on food irradiation 
     labeling as the agency was directed to do under the FDA 
     Modernization Act conference committee report in 1997. In 
     evaluating the comments that the agency received from the 
     ANPR, FDA stated: ``The majority of these comments were 
     letters that urged the agency to retain special labeling for 
     irradiated foods but did not address the specific issues on 
     which FDA requested comment. A preliminary analysis of the 
     comments suggests no consensus about what alternative 
     language for disclosure of irradiation processing would be 
     truthful and not misleading. Because the public comments 
     provided no clear direction for agency rulemaking, FDA 
     believes that 1999 ANPR fulfills the Agency's obligations 
     under the FDAMA Conference Report.''
       The FDA went on to say in its report to Congress that it 
     intended to impanel consumer focus groups to attempt to 
     obtain further guidance on the labeling issue.
       During the summer of 2001, the FDA commissioned six 
     consumer focus groups in suburban Washington, DC; 
     Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Sacramento, California. In all of 
     the focus groups, the moderator attempted to make a strong 
     association between pasteurization and irradiation. This was 
     significant since there have been some irradiation proponents 
     who have argued that a more appropriate term to describe 
     irradiation is either ``cold pasteurization'' or ``electronic 
     pasteurization.'' In a 2002 report to Congress, the FDA 
     summarized the results of those focus groups: ``Most of the 
     participants viewed alternate terms such as `cold 
     pasteurization' and `electronic pasteurization' as 
     misleading, because they appeared to conceal rather than 
     disclose information about irradiated food products. 
     Participants did not see the current disclosure labeling as a 
     warning . . . Everyone agreed that irradiated

[[Page 17845]]

     foods should be labeled honestly. They indicated that the 
     current FDA required statement is a straightforward way for 
     labeling irradiated foods.''
       Furthermore, in his 2002 testimony before the House 
     Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
     Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations, Dr. 
     Lester Crawford, Deputy Commissioner of the FDA stated: 
     ``(W)hen we did focus groups at FDA on cold pasteurization, 
     the general feeling of the average citizen was that this was 
     kind of a ruse or a means to conceal the fact that the food 
     had been irradiated. And so we are kind of back to square 
     one. We don't have a good synonym for irradiation and we 
     would like to have one. We don't want to mislead the 
     public.''
       The public has been very consistent on the issue--in focus 
     groups for USDA and FDA and in public comments solicited by 
     FDA. Consumers do not want labeling rules for irradiated food 
     to allow euphemisms like ``electronic pasteurization.'' In 
     fact, rather than changing the words that are permitted to 
     describe irradiated food, FDA should instead focus on 
     expanding the current rules beyond retail establishments, so 
     that irradiated food served in restaurants, hospitals and 
     schools must be labeled. There have already been too many 
     resources devoted to this issue within FDA. The driving force 
     ought to be what the consumers believe to be honest and 
     straightforward labeling--not what some in industry think 
     will make it easier to sell their product. The FDA has more 
     important things to do than devising ways to confuse and 
     mislead consumers. We urge you not to find further attempts 
     to change labeling rules for irradiated foods.
       Thank you.

  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I regret that I was unable to be here 
during debate on the Agriculture Appropriations bill. Had I been 
available, I would have engaged Congresswoman Kaptur, the ranking 
member on the House Appropriations Agriculture Subcommittee, in a 
colloquy to discuss research on chronic wasting disease transmission.
  Chronic wasting disease is spreading into Illinois. The emergence of 
this disease in Cook County is the closest the disease has come to a 
large urban population. While this disease has yet to be detected in 
humans, little is known about how chronic wasting disease is 
transmitted from species to species. Illinois is fortunate to have 
unique multidisciplinary research collaborations, such as the 
Conservation Medicine Center of Chicago (CMCC), positioned to conduct 
important chronic wasting disease transmission research. The CMCC is a 
unique collaboration between Brookfield Zoo, Loyola University Chicago 
Stritch School of Medicine, and the University of Illinois College of 
Veterinary Medicine. The CMCC brings together an exceptional team of 
nearly twenty-five physicians, veterinarians, researchers and 
clinicians from many disciplines to study conservation medicine.
  Chronic wasting disease is a growing problem across the country and 
the Committee has included funds for chronic wasting disease research 
in the Department of Agriculture's budget. I would like to urge the 
Department to utilize unique multidisciplinary research collaborations, 
such as the CMCC, to study this emerging disease and its transmission.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, to a farmer, `erosion' is the progressive 
loss of some of the best means to robust and sustained production from 
their lands. It is one of the most expensive and difficult problems 
threatening their liveliehood--but, fortunately, it is a loss many 
farmers prevent by enrolling some of their marginal working lands in 
voluntary conservation programs.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, I mention this because of the cynical irony at 
hand--today, it is Congress that must act to prevent another form of 
`erosion', the erosion of legislation this Congress passed with great 
debate just one year ago--the 2002 Farm Bill.
  At the time, I led an effort to increase funding to conservation 
programs that are available to all farmers because I strongly believed 
the 2002 Farm Bill to be too heavily weighted to primarily assisting 
the largest growers of a few commodity crops in a handful of states. 
Because of this lopsided tilt toward commodity subsidization, many who 
are not eligible--including dairy farmers, ranchers and fruit and 
vegetable farmers--rely upon conservation programs to boost farm and 
ranch income and to ease the cost of environmental compliance.
  I argued that a small shift in funds from the commodity programs to 
voluntary conservation programs would significantly help more farmers 
in more regions of the country. At the end of the debate, conservation 
programs made some gains, though not all that I had sought.
  The Farm Bill provided nearly $3 billion for USDA conservation 
programs in FY 2004, including $1.1 billion for working lands 
incentives programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives program, 
the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, and the Conservation Security 
Program.
  The point, however, is that the 2002 Farm Bill was the end product of 
vociferous debate and was the culmination of all Members' input.
  Unfortunately, the FY 2004 Agriculture Appropriations bill before us 
today undermines all of those efforts by rewriting the Farm Bill to 
reduce these critical working lands incentive programs by nearly 10 
percent. Make no mistake, if passed, this bill will do nothing less 
than deny farmers and ranchers the funds they were promised.
  The fiscal year 2004 Agricultural Appropriations bill before us today 
is supposed to provide the resources needed to help America's 
struggling farmers and ranchers--not go back and begin chipping away at 
pieces of the Farm Bill to better suit the view of a few appropriators. 
Yet, this is exactly what has happened. In total this Appropriation 
Bill seeks to eliminate more than $100 million from conservation and 
renewable energy programs that has been authorized under the 2002 Farm 
Bill.
  Farmers and ranchers who depend upon these programs, and who have 
been hit hardest financially in recent years, will receive a 
disproportionately large cut in spending in FY 2004. In contrast, I am 
disappointed to note that no cuts have been proposed to commodity 
payments flowing to the largest grain farmers in just 15 states.
  Specifically, sections 737, 738 and 745 of the underlying bill will 
respectively limit the enrollment of the Wetlands Reserve program by 
slashing 50,000 acres, or about $56 million from its authorized level; 
cut $25 million from the Environmental Quality Incentive program; and 
totally gut the Conservation Security program.
  Despite the funds provided by the Farm Bill, most farmers and 
ranchers offering to restore wetlands and grasslands or offering to 
change the way they farm to improve air and water quality are still 
rejected when they seek USDA conservation assistance. For example, 
farmers and ranchers face a $1.4 billion backlog when they seek cost-
sharing from the Environmental Quality Incentives program to improve 
water quality or wildlife habitat. These long lines will only grow 
longer if cut funds provided by the Farm Bill as has been proposed in 
the underlying bill.
  WRP and EQIP are programs proven to assist farmers while helping the 
environment, and CSP holds equal promise.
  Farmers have offered to restore most than 600,000 acres of lost 
wetlands by enrolling farmland into the wetlands reserve program. But, 
nearly all of these farmers will be rejected in FY 04, thanks in part 
to the cut included in this Appropriations Bill. These farmers are 
offering to restore more wetlands than the entire Nation destroys in a 
decade. Wetlands are not only crucial to wildlife and fish habitat but 
also to our own sources of drinking water. But the Agriculture 
Appropriations bill instead proposes to cut, rather than increase, 
funding to this crucial program.
  Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, by providing more than $6.5 billion for 
working lands programs like EQIP and CSP in the 2002 Farm Bill, 
Congress decisively increased funds to help farmers manage working 
lands to produce food and fiber and simultaneously enhance water 
quality and wildlife habitat. EQUIP helps share the cost of a broad 
range of land management practices that help the environment, include 
more efficient use of fertilizers and pesticides and innovative 
technologies to store and reuse animal waste. CSP is a new program that 
will link conservation payments to gradually increasing levels of 
performance. In combination, these programs will provide farmers the 
tools and incentives they need to help meet our major environmental 
challenges.
  Again, appropriators did not seek any cuts from the commodity 
programs, and it is these programs that the administration has 
identified as a barrier to successful negotiations in the World Trade 
Organzation as well as to the secure economic future of developing 
nations.
  Mr. Chairman, President Bush recently toured the African Continent. 
In a New York Times article about the trip, the President is quoted on 
the topic of domestic agriculture subsidies as saying, ``. . . It will 
come up in every country we come to, because African leaders are 
worried that subsidies, agricultural subsidies, are undermining their 
capacity to become self-sufficient . . .''
  And in recent testimony before the House Agriculture Committee, U.S. 
Trade Representative Robert Zoellick spoke about the need to 
``Harmonize and reduce trade-distorting domestic support programs.''
  The prior global negotiating effort--the Uruguay round (1986-1994)--
was the first serious attempt to impose reforming disciplines on the 
world agricultural trade. Yet, the Uruguay round only started the job 
of tackling trade-distorting domestic subsidies by allocating them into 
three categories: ``green box'' subsidies,

[[Page 17846]]

which involved payments decoupled from production incentives such as 
conservation programs; ``amber box'' subsidies, which includes payments 
linked to production, were capped at current levels and then cut by 20 
percent and ``blue box'' subsidies, for payments linked to reductions 
in production, were allowed subject to specific criteria.
  In his testimony before Congress, USTR Zoellick stated, ``The current 
`DOHA Round' of negotiations seeks to build on the first step of the 
Uruguay round by pressing for much more substantial reductions to 
achieve a more levels playing field. To do so, the United States has 
proposed a cut of over $100 billion in trade-distorting support 
globally, undertaken in a manner that harmonizes levels across 
countries, with the eventual elimination of these subsidies all 
together.''
  Mr. Chairman, as much as some appropriators and a few others in 
Congress may want to avoid the inevitable need to reform our domestic 
commodity support programs, it is equally unfortunate they have used 
this spending bill to erode our past work and break Congress's promise 
to America's farmers and ranchers.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this misprioritized and 
shortsighted bill.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in support of H.R. 
2673, the Agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004.
  This Member would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Bonilla), the Chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations 
Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), 
the ranking member of the Subcommittee, for their hard work in bringing 
this bill to the Floor.
  Mr. Chairman, this Member certainly recognizes the severe budget 
constraints under which the full Appropriations Committee and the 
Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee operated. In light of these 
constraints, this Member is grateful and pleased that this legislation 
includes funding for several important projects of interest to the 
state of Nebraska.
  First, this Member is pleased that H.R. 2673 provides $477,000 for 
the Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance (MAFMA). The Alliance 
is an association of twelve leading research universities and corporate 
partners. Its purpose is to develop and facilitate the transfer of new 
food manufacturing and processing technologies.
  The MAFMA award grants for research projects on a peer review basis. 
These awards must be supported by an industry partner willing to 
provide matching funds. In 2002, MAFMA had a total of 22 requests for 
funds seeking $789,995 with matching funds of $916,596. Thirteen 
proposals were funded with the total award of $387,688. Matching funds 
for the funded proposals were $416,702 in addition to an in-kind total 
of $97,550. These figures convincingly demonstrate how successful the 
Alliance has been in leveraging support from the food manufacturing and 
processing industries.
  Mr. Chairman, the future viability and competitiveness of the U.S. 
agricultural industry depends on its ability to adapt to increasing 
world-wide demands for U.S. exports of intermediate and consumer good 
exports. In order to meet these changing world-wide demands, 
agricultural research must also adapt to provide more emphasis on 
adding value to our basic farm commodities. The Midwest Advanced Food 
Manufacturing Alliance can provide the necessary cooperative link 
between universities and industries for the development of competitive 
food manufacturing and processing technologies. This will, in turn, 
ensure that the United States agricultural industry remains competitive 
in a increasingly competitive global economy.
  This Member is also pleased that this bill includes $224,000 to fund 
the National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC) at the University of 
Nebraska-Lincoln. This project has assisted numerous states and cities 
in developing drought plans and developing drought response teams. 
Given the nearly unprecedented levels of drought in several parts of 
our country in recent years, this effort is obviously important.
  Another important project funded by this bill is the Alliance for 
Food Protection, a joint project between the University of Nebraska and 
the University of Georgia. The mission of this Alliance is to assist 
the development and modification of food processing and preservation 
technologies. This technology will help ensure that Americans continue 
to receive the safest and highest quality food possible.
  This Member is also pleased that the Committee Report expresses 
support for a number of Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations 
projects, including the Aowa Creek Watershed in Dixon County, Nebraska. 
When completed, the project will significantly reduce the risk of 
flooding to farms, roads, and community of Ponca, Nebraska. This 
important flood control project is nearing completion, but lacks 
sufficient funding to reimburse the local sponsor.
  This Member would also note that H.R. 2673 includes a loan level of 
$100 million for the Section 538, the rural rental multi-family housing 
loan guarantee program. Under H.R. 2763, it is estimated that a loan 
subsidy of $5.95 million will be needed to meet this loan level. The 
Section 538 program provides a Federal guarantee on loans made to 
eligible persons by private lenders. Developers will bring ten percent 
of the cost of the project to the table, and private lenders will make 
loans for the balance. The lenders will be given a 100 percent Federal 
guarantee on the loans they make. Unlike the current Section 515 direct 
loan Program, where the full costs are borne by the Federal Government, 
the only costs to the Federal Government under the 538 Guarantee 
Program will be for administrative costs and potential defaults.
  Mr. Chairman, this Member certainly appreciates the $2.725 billion 
loan level for the Department of Agriculture's Section 502 Unsubsidized 
Loan Guarantee Program. Under H.R. 2763, it is estimated that a loan 
subsidy of $39.9 million will be needed to meet this loan level. The 
Section 502 program has been very effective in rural communities by 
guaranteeing loans made by approved lenders to eligible income 
households in small communities of up to 20,000 residents in non-
metropolitan areas and in rural areas. The program provides guarantees 
for 30-year fixed-rate mortgages for the purchase of an existing home 
or the construction of a new home.
  Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, this Member supports H.R. 2673 and urges 
his colleagues to approve it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, hunger is a terrible problem in the 
United States and around the world.
  It's a problem that affects over 20 million adults and 13 million 
children right here in this country. They're our seniors, our veterans, 
our neighbors, working parents and their children.
  And around the world, 800 million people--300 million of them 
children--go hungry every day.
  I believe that hunger is a political condition.
  The fact is that we have the resources to commit to ending hunger 
both at home and abroad. We have the technology, the expertise, the 
funding. What we lack is the political will to put an end to this 
scourge.
  Currently, the unemployment rate is at 6.4% and growing. The demands 
on our community food banks and soup kitchens are becoming more than 
they can handle.
  Government is about choices.
  This Congress and this Administration have chosen over and over again 
to support tax cuts for the wealthy over prudent policies to help lift 
Americans out of poverty and to end hunger among the 33 million 
Americans who need our help.
  Today, we are considering a Fiscal Year 2004 Agriculture 
Appropriations bill that dramatically underfunds programs that combat 
hunger here and abroad.
  This Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program, a key source of 
funding for food banks, is underfunded by $10 million.
  The Women, Infants and Children program that provides assistance to 
infants, young children and pregnant, postpartum, and nursing women who 
are at-risk because of inadequate nutrition and income is $108 million 
below the Fiscal Year 2003 level. Although the Committee acknowledged 
that food prices were lower than expected, many of us have real 
concerns that a reduction in WIC funding--coupled with a continuing 
rise in unemployment--is a formula for tragedy.
  The Senior Farmers Market Nutrition program is flat funded, even 
though the number of applications continues to outpace the availability 
of funds for this critical effort.
  And if that weren't enough, Mr. Chairman, the funding levels in this 
bill for international food aid are completely inadequate.
  P.L. 480, Title II funding--money that goes for humanitarian food 
aid--is more than $620 million below the Fiscal Year 2003 level.
  And a program that I have been championing since its inception--the 
McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition--is 
funded at $57 million. This is a $43 million decrease from last year 
and a $243 million drop from the funding provided to the initial pilot 
program.
  The American economy, once vibrant, is struggling. Millions of 
Americans have lost their jobs, and incomes for many others are falling 
as they are forced to take lower-paying jobs to avoid unemployment.
  One in five children in this country is threatened by hunger.
  Every day, Mr. Chairman, 33 million Americans do not know whether 
there will be food on their tables. Overseas, people are starving

[[Page 17847]]

to death because of famine, drought, war and poverty.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand the difficulties the Chairman of the 
Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee faced in drafting this bill. 
I'm sure that, given more resources, he would provide better funding 
levels for these important programs.
  But the fact remains that the numbers in this bill are too low to 
meet the challenges of hunger. The last thing we should be doing is 
cutting funding for programs that serve the most vulnerable.
  We can and we must do better.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman 
Bonilla and Ranking Member Kaptur for their support regarding the 
Resident Instruction and Distance Education Grants Program for the 
Insular Areas. Last year's Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 
authorized this program with intent to develop and strengthen the land 
grant universities in the U.S. territories.
  The American Samoa Community College has a strong and growing 
agricultural program which would benefit from this program. As insular 
areas members we support each other in this effort to fund this program 
which would provide the necessary teaching and instruction needed to 
educate our local people about health and diet education, environmental 
management and how best to utilize our natural resources.
  At this time, I want to thank Chairman Bonilla and Ranking Member 
Kaptur for their continued support and I once again recommend inclusion 
of report language which acknowledges the need for funding of this 
critical program.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2673, the 
Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 
2004. As a representative from Iowa with an economy heavily dependent 
on farming and farm-related businesses, I have a keen interest in this 
legislation which funds many of our agricultural research, food safety, 
and export promotion programs. As Chairman of the House Budget 
Committee, I am also interested in ensuring that this bill complies 
with the House Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2004 
[H. Con. Res. 95].
  The bill provides $17 billion in new discretionary budget authority--
$221 million above the President's request. While H.R. 2673 falls 
within its budgetary allocation, I would point out that the bill 
includes $538 million in mandatory savings, which are under the 
jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committee.
  Overall, funding for agriculture appropriations has increased at an 
annual rate of 3.2 percent over the last five years. This rate is 4.5 
percent below that of discretionary spending as a whole. I commend 
Chairman Bonilla and Ranking Member Kaptur for their ability to work to 
produce a fiscally responsible bill.
  The bill complies with sections 302(f) and 311(a) of the Budget Act. 
The first of these prohibits consideration of bills in excess of an 
appropriations subcommittee's 302(b) allocation of budget authority and 
outlays established in the budget resolution. The second, section 
311(a), prohibits consideration of legislation exceeding the aggregate 
levels of budget authority and outlays established in the concurrent 
resolution on the budget.
  In conclusion, I express my support for H.R. 2673, which makes an 
important contribution to ensuring that Americans continue to have the 
most abundant, inexpensive, and safest food supply in the world. I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this Fiscal Year 2004 
Agriculture Funding measure because it represents a good product under 
difficult circumstances. As we all know, this bill is not perfect--in 
large part because the allocation for Fiscal Year 2004 is considerably 
less than last year--some $800 million, in fact.
  Because of the drop-off between the FY-03 allocation and the one for 
04, the committee has to make difficult choices in order to accommodate 
the various sectors that are funded in the bill. While we are going to 
hear today that this bill short changes many areas, we should consider 
that the bill has many positives because it does.
  Even with reduced resources, many important programs are well-funded. 
For example, funding for the FDA's generic drug program is increased, 
as is FDA funding for food safety. The bill includes monies to 
implement the ``Better Pharmaceuticals for Children Act''.
  This bill also includes funding for valuable agriculture research 
that is currently carried out at major research centers. That research 
includes exploring better ways to make our agricultural production 
lands more efficient, and our ways of production more environmentally 
sound. For example, there is funding for animal feeding operations 
pilot projects that bring innovative technology to bear as we seek to 
reduce wastewater nutrients discharged from animal feeding operations.
  Other research funding goes to helping us to better understand the 
origins of food crop diseases through high-level initiatives aimed at 
making our food production more economical and more healthy. Countless 
projects around the country will make significant strides in the 
research arena in the coming year because of this bill.
  Many of those projects are in the states of some of the members who 
will speak ill of this measure today. But we should remember that those 
important research initiatives would not have been possible were it for 
the measured approach taken in reporting this bill of committee.
  Not only did the committee have to make difficult program funding 
choices, but it also had to make choices to accomodate members of this 
body. At a point in the process, decisions had to be made, and I 
believe that the chairman did an excellent job in balancing the various 
needs and interests of the agriculture community and the members.
  As a member of the subcommittee from an agriculture state, I can tell 
you that there are several things that I would like to have seen come 
out differently, particularly as to funding levels.
  As a member of the agriculture subcommittee on appropriations, I can 
also tell you that all of us can point to things that we would like to 
have seen come out differently. In the end however, a good product has 
been fashioned, and I urge you to support it.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2673

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2004, and for other purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                         AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

                 Production, Processing, and Marketing

                        Office of the Secretary

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, $3,468,000: Provided, That not to exceed $11,000 
     of this amount shall be available for official reception and 
     representation expenses, not otherwise provided for, as 
     determined by the Secretary.

                          Executive Operations


                            chief economist

       For necessary expenses of the Chief Economist, including 
     economic analysis, risk assessment, cost-benefit analysis, 
     energy and new uses, and the functions of the World 
     Agricultural Outlook Board, as authorized by the Agricultural 
     Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1622g), $8,716,000.


                       national appeals division

       For necessary expenses of the National Appeals Division, 
     $13,670,000.


                 office of budget and program analysis

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Budget and Program 
     Analysis, $7,749,000.

                Office of the Chief Information Officer

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief 
     Information Officer, $14,993,000.


                      common computing environment

       For necessary expenses to acquire a Common Computing 
     Environment for the Natural Resources Conservation Service, 
     the Farm and Foreign Agricultural Service, and the Rural 
     Development mission areas for information technology, 
     systems, and services, $133,155,000, to remain available 
     until expended, for the capital asset acquisition of shared 
     information technology systems, including services as 
     authorized by 7 U.S.C. 6915-16 and 40 U.S.C. 1421-28: 
     Provided, That obligation of these funds shall be consistent 
     with the Department of Agriculture Service Center 
     Modernization Plan of the county-based agencies, and shall be 
     with the concurrence of the Department's Chief Information 
     Officer.

                 Office of the Chief Financial Officer

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief Financial 
     Officer, $5,785,000: Provided, That the Chief Financial 
     Officer shall actively market and expand cross-servicing 
     activities of the National Finance Center: Provided further, 
     That no funds made available by this appropriation may be 
     obligated for FAIR Act or Circular A-76 activities until the 
     Secretary has submitted to the Committees on Appropriations 
     of both Houses of Congress a report on the Department's 
     contracting out policies, including agency budgets for 
     contracting out.

           Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, $397,000.

[[Page 17848]]



          Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Assistant Secretary for Administration, $678,000.

        Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For payment of space rental and related costs pursuant to 
     Public Law 92-313, including authorities pursuant to the 1984 
     delegation of authority from the Administrator of General 
     Services to the Department of Agriculture under 40 U.S.C. 
     486, for programs and activities of the Department which are 
     included in this Act, and for alterations and other actions 
     needed for the Department and its agencies to consolidate 
     unneeded space into configurations suitable for release to 
     the Administrator of General Services, and for the operation, 
     maintenance, improvement, and repair of Agriculture buildings 
     and facilities, and for related costs, as follows: for 
     payments to the General Services Administration, 
     $124,332,000, for buildings operations and maintenance, 
     $32,559,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That not to exceed 5 percent of amounts which are made 
     available for space rental and related costs for the 
     Department of Agriculture in this Act may be transferred 
     between such appropriations to cover the costs of new or 
     replacement space 15 days after notice thereof is transmitted 
     to the Appropriations Committees of both Houses of Congress.

                     Hazardous Materials Management


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Department of Agriculture, to 
     comply with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) and 
     the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et 
     seq.), $15,713,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That appropriations and funds available herein to 
     the Department for Hazardous Materials Management may be 
     transferred to any agency of the Department for its use in 
     meeting all requirements pursuant to the above Acts on 
     Federal and non-Federal lands.

                      Departmental Administration


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For Departmental Administration, $38,592,000, to provide 
     for necessary expenses for management support services to 
     offices of the Department and for general administration, 
     security, repairs and alterations, and other miscellaneous 
     supplies and expenses not otherwise provided for and 
     necessary for the practical and efficient work of the 
     Department: Provided, That this appropriation shall be 
     reimbursed from applicable appropriations in this Act for 
     travel expenses incident to the holding of hearings as 
     required by 5 U.S.C. 551-558.

     Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations to carry out 
     the programs funded by this Act, including programs involving 
     intergovernmental affairs and liaison within the executive 
     branch, $3,796,000: Provided, That these funds may be 
     transferred to agencies of the Department of Agriculture 
     funded by this Act to maintain personnel at the agency level: 
     Provided further, That no funds made available by this 
     appropriation may be obligated after 30 days from the date of 
     enactment of this Act, unless the Secretary has notified the 
     Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress on 
     the allocation of these funds by USDA agency: Provided 
     further, That no other funds appropriated to the Department 
     by this Act shall be available to the Department for support 
     of activities of congressional relations.

                        Office of Communications

       For necessary expenses to carry out services relating to 
     the coordination of programs involving public affairs, for 
     the dissemination of agricultural information, and the 
     coordination of information, work, and programs authorized by 
     Congress in the Department, $9,245,000: Provided, That not to 
     exceed $2,000,000 may be used for farmers' bulletins.

                    Office of the Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Inspector 
     General, including employment pursuant to the Inspector 
     General Act of 1978, $77,314,000, including such sums as may 
     be necessary for contracting and other arrangements with 
     public agencies and private persons pursuant to section 
     6(a)(9) of the Inspector General Act of 1978, and including 
     not to exceed $125,000 for certain confidential operational 
     expenses as well as the payment of informants, to be expended 
     under the direction of the Inspector General pursuant to 
     Public Law 95-452 and section 1337 of Public Law 97-98.

                     Office of the General Counsel

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the General 
     Counsel, $34,700,000.

  Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics to 
     administer the laws enacted by the Congress for the Economic 
     Research Service, the National Agricultural Statistics 
     Service, the Agricultural Research Service, and the 
     Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, 
     $597,000.

                       Economic Research Service

       For necessary expenses of the Economic Research Service in 
     conducting economic research and analysis, as authorized by 
     the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627) 
     and other laws, $71,402,000.

                National Agricultural Statistics Service

       For necessary expenses of the National Agricultural 
     Statistics Service in conducting statistical reporting and 
     service work, including crop and livestock estimates, 
     statistical coordination and improvements, marketing surveys, 
     and the Census of Agriculture, as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 
     1621-1627 and 2204g, and other laws, $129,800,000, of which 
     up to $25,279,000 shall be available until expended for the 
     Census of Agriculture.

                     Agricultural Research Service


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses to enable the Agricultural Research 
     Service to perform agricultural research and demonstration 
     relating to production, utilization, marketing, and 
     distribution (not otherwise provided for); home economics or 
     nutrition and consumer use including the acquisition, 
     preservation, and dissemination of agricultural information; 
     and for acquisition of lands by donation, exchange, or 
     purchase at a nominal cost not to exceed $100, and for land 
     exchanges where the lands exchanged shall be of equal value 
     or shall be equalized by a payment of money to the grantor 
     which shall not exceed 25 percent of the total value of the 
     land or interests transferred out of Federal ownership, 
     $1,014,000,000: Provided, That appropriations hereunder shall 
     be available for the operation and maintenance of aircraft 
     and the purchase of not to exceed one for replacement only: 
     Provided further, That appropriations hereunder shall be 
     available pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2250 for the construction, 
     alteration, and repair of buildings and improvements, but 
     unless otherwise provided, the cost of constructing any one 
     building shall not exceed $375,000, except for headhouses or 
     greenhouses which shall each be limited to $1,200,000, and 
     except for 10 buildings to be constructed or improved at a 
     cost not to exceed $750,000 each, and the cost of altering 
     any one building during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10 
     percent of the current replacement value of the building or 
     $375,000, whichever is greater: Provided further, That the 
     limitations on alterations contained in this Act shall not 
     apply to modernization or replacement of existing facilities 
     at Beltsville, Maryland: Provided further, That 
     appropriations hereunder shall be available for granting 
     easements at the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center: 
     Provided further, That the foregoing limitations shall not 
     apply to replacement of buildings needed to carry out the Act 
     of April 24, 1948 (21 U.S.C. 113a): Provided further, That 
     funds may be received from any State, other political 
     subdivision, organization, or individual for the purpose of 
     establishing or operating any research facility or research 
     project of the Agricultural Research Service, as authorized 
     by law.
       None of the funds appropriated under this heading shall be 
     available to carry out research related to the production, 
     processing, or marketing of tobacco or tobacco products.


                        buildings and facilities

       For acquisition of land, construction, repair, improvement, 
     extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or 
     facilities as necessary to carry out the agricultural 
     research programs of the Department of Agriculture, where not 
     otherwise provided, $35,900,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

      Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service


                   research and education activities

       For payments to agricultural experiment stations, for 
     cooperative forestry and other research, for facilities, and 
     for other expenses, $594,772,000, as follows: to carry out 
     the provisions of the Hatch Act of 1887 (7 U.S.C. 361a-i), 
     $180,148,000; for grants for cooperative forestry research 
     (16 U.S.C. 582a through a-7), $21,884,000; for payments to 
     the 1890 land-grant colleges, including Tuskegee University 
     and West Virginia State College (7 U.S.C. 3222), $36,000,000, 
     of which $1,507,496 shall be made available only for the 
     purpose of ensuring that each institution shall receive no 
     less than $1,000,000; for special grants for agricultural 
     research (7 U.S.C. 450i(c)), $101,241,000; for special grants 
     for agricultural research on improved pest control (7 U.S.C. 
     450i(c)), $15,194,000; for competitive research grants (7 
     U.S.C. 450i(b)), $149,248,000; for the support of animal 
     health and disease programs (7 U.S.C. 3195), $5,065,000; for 
     supplemental and alternative crops and products (7 U.S.C. 
     3319d), $1,188,000; for the 1994 research grants program for 
     1994 institutions pursuant to section 536 of Public Law 103-
     382 (7 U.S.C. 301 note), $998,000, to remain available until 
     expended; for rangeland research grants (7 U.S.C. 3333), 
     $1,000,000; for higher education graduate fellowship grants 
     (7

[[Page 17849]]

     U.S.C. 3152(b)(6)), $3,222,000, to remain available until 
     expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b); for higher education challenge 
     grants (7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(1)), $4,888,000; for a higher 
     education multicultural scholars program (7 U.S.C. 
     3152(b)(5)), $992,000, to remain available until expended; 
     for an education grants program for Hispanic-serving 
     Institutions (7 U.S.C. 3241), $4,073,000; for noncompetitive 
     grants for the purpose of carrying out all provisions of 7 
     U.S.C. 3242 (section 759 of Public Law 106-78) to individual 
     eligible institutions or consortia of eligible institutions 
     in Alaska and in Hawaii, with funds awarded equally to each 
     of the States of Alaska and Hawaii, $2,997,000; for a 
     secondary agriculture education program and 2-year post-
     secondary education (7 U.S.C. 3152(j)), $994,000; for 
     aquaculture grants (7 U.S.C. 3322), $3,996,000; for 
     sustainable agriculture research and education (7 U.S.C. 
     5811), $13,661,000; for a program of capacity building grants 
     (7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(4)) to colleges eligible to receive funds 
     under the Act of August 30, 1890 (7 U.S.C. 321-326 and 328), 
     including Tuskegee University and West Virginia State 
     College, $9,479,000, to remain available until expended (7 
     U.S.C. 2209b); for payments to the 1994 Institutions pursuant 
     to section 534(a)(1) of Public Law 103-382, $1,689,000; and 
     for necessary expenses of Research and Education Activities, 
     $36,815,000.
       None of the funds appropriated under this heading shall be 
     available to carry out research related to the production, 
     processing, or marketing of tobacco or tobacco products: 
     Provided, That this paragraph shall not apply to research on 
     the medical, biotechnological, food, and industrial uses of 
     tobacco.


              native american institutions endowment fund

       For the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund 
     authorized by Public Law 103-382 (7 U.S.C. 301 note), 
     $9,000,000.

                          extension activities

       For payments to States, the District of Columbia, Puerto 
     Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, Micronesia, Northern 
     Marianas, and American Samoa, $438,242,000, as follows: 
     payments for cooperative extension work under the Smith-Lever 
     Act, to be distributed under sections 3(b) and 3(c) of said 
     Act, and under section 208(c) of Public Law 93-471, for 
     retirement and employees' compensation costs for extension 
     agents, $275,940,000; payments for extension work at the 1994 
     Institutions under the Smith-Lever Act (7 U.S.C. 343(b)(3)), 
     $3,273,000; payments for the nutrition and family education 
     program for low-income areas under section 3(d) of the Act, 
     $58,185,000; payments for the pest management program under 
     section 3(d) of the Act, $10,689,000; payments for the farm 
     safety program under section 3(d) of the Act, $5,489,000; 
     payments to upgrade research, extension, and teaching 
     facilities at the 1890 land-grant colleges, including 
     Tuskegee University and West Virginia State College, as 
     authorized by section 1447 of Public Law 95-113 (7 U.S.C. 
     3222b), $13,500,000, to remain available until expended; 
     payments for youth-at-risk programs under section 3(d) of the 
     Smith-Lever Act, $8,426,000; for youth farm safety education 
     and certification extension grants, to be awarded 
     competitively under section 3(d) of the Act, $496,000; 
     payments for carrying out the provisions of the Renewable 
     Resources Extension Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 1671 et seq.), 
     $4,093,000; payments for Indian reservation agents under 
     section 3(d) of the Smith-Lever Act, $1,983,000; payments for 
     sustainable agriculture programs under section 3(d) of the 
     Act, $4,843,000; payments for cooperative extension work by 
     the colleges receiving the benefits of the second Morrill Act 
     (7 U.S.C. 321-326 and 328) and Tuskegee University and West 
     Virginia State College, $31,908,000, of which $1,724,884 
     shall be made available only for the purpose of ensuring that 
     each institution shall receive no less than $1,000,000; and 
     for necessary expenses of extension activities, $19,417,000.


                         integrated activities

       For the integrated research, education, and extension 
     grants programs, including necessary administrative expenses, 
     $62,942,000, as follows: for competitive grants programs 
     authorized under section 406 of the Agricultural Research, 
     Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7626), 
     $43,942,000, including $12,887,000 for the water quality 
     program, $14,870,000 for the food safety program, $4,501,000 
     for the regional pest management centers program, $4,857,000 
     for the Food Quality Protection Act risk mitigation program 
     for major food crop systems, $1,487,000 for the crops 
     affected by Food Quality Protection Act implementation, 
     $3,229,000 for the methyl bromide transition program, and 
     $2,111,000 for the organic transition program; for a 
     competitive international science and education grants 
     program authorized under section 1459A of the National 
     Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 
     1977 (7 U.S.C. 3292b), to remain available until expended, 
     $1,000,000; for grants programs authorized under section 
     2(c)(1)(B) of Public Law 89-106, as amended, $2,000,000, 
     including $497,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2005 for the critical issues program, and $1,503,000 for the 
     regional rural development centers program; and $16,000,000 
     for the homeland security program authorized under section 
     1484 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and 
     Teaching Act of 1977, to remain available until September 30, 
     2005.


              outreach for socially disadvantaged farmers

       For grants and contracts pursuant to section 2501 of the 
     Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 
     U.S.C. 2279), $3,470,000, to remain available until expended.

  Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs to 
     administer programs under the laws enacted by the Congress 
     for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; the 
     Agricultural Marketing Service; and the Grain Inspection, 
     Packers and Stockyards Administration; $725,000.

               Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service


                         Salaries and Expenses

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary to 
     prevent, control, and eradicate pests and plant and animal 
     diseases; to carry out inspection, quarantine, and regulatory 
     activities; and to protect the environment, as authorized by 
     law, $725,502,000, of which $4,139,000 shall be available for 
     the control of outbreaks of insects, plant diseases, animal 
     diseases and for control of pest animals and birds to the 
     extent necessary to meet emergency conditions; of which 
     $51,000,000 shall be used for the boll weevil eradication 
     program for cost share purposes or for debt retirement for 
     active eradication zones: Provided, That no funds shall be 
     used to formulate or administer a brucellosis eradication 
     program for the current fiscal year that does not require 
     minimum matching by the States of at least 40 percent: 
     Provided further, That this appropriation shall be available 
     for the operation and maintenance of aircraft and the 
     purchase of not to exceed four, of which two shall be for 
     replacement only: Provided further, That, in addition, in 
     emergencies which threaten any segment of the agricultural 
     production industry of this country, the Secretary may 
     transfer from other appropriations or funds available to the 
     agencies or corporations of the Department such sums as may 
     be deemed necessary, to be available only in such emergencies 
     for the arrest and eradication of contagious or infectious 
     disease or pests of animals, poultry, or plants, and for 
     expenses in accordance with sections 10411 and 10417 of the 
     Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8310 and 8316) and 
     sections 431 and 442 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 
     7751 and 7772), and any unexpended balances of funds 
     transferred for such emergency purposes in the preceding 
     fiscal year shall be merged with such transferred amounts: 
     Provided further, That appropriations hereunder shall be 
     available pursuant to law (7 U.S.C. 2250) for the repair and 
     alteration of leased buildings and improvements, but unless 
     otherwise provided the cost of altering any one building 
     during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10 percent of the 
     current replacement value of the building.
       In fiscal year 2004, the agency is authorized to collect 
     fees to cover the total costs of providing technical 
     assistance, goods, or services requested by States, other 
     political subdivisions, domestic and international 
     organizations, foreign governments, or individuals, provided 
     that such fees are structured such that any entity's 
     liability for such fees is reasonably based on the technical 
     assistance, goods, or services provided to the entity by the 
     agency, and such fees shall be credited to this account, to 
     remain available until expended, without further 
     appropriation, for providing such assistance, goods, or 
     services.


                        buildings and facilities

       For plans, construction, repair, preventive maintenance, 
     environmental support, improvement, extension, alteration, 
     and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities, as authorized 
     by 7 U.S.C. 2250, and acquisition of land as authorized by 7 
     U.S.C. 428a, $4,996,000, to remain available until expended.

                     Agricultural Marketing Service


                           Marketing Services

       For necessary expenses to carry out services related to 
     consumer protection, agricultural marketing and distribution, 
     transportation, and regulatory programs, as authorized by 
     law, and for administration and coordination of payments to 
     States, $75,953,000, including funds for the wholesale market 
     development program for the design and development of 
     wholesale and farmer market facilities for the major 
     metropolitan areas of the country: Provided, That this 
     appropriation shall be available pursuant to law (7 U.S.C. 
     2250) for the alteration and repair of buildings and 
     improvements, but the cost of altering any one building 
     during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10 percent of the 
     current replacement value of the building.
       Fees may be collected for the cost of standardization 
     activities, as established by regulation pursuant to law (31 
     U.S.C. 9701).


                 limitation on administrative expenses

       Not to exceed $62,577,000 (from fees collected) shall be 
     obligated during the current fiscal year for administrative 
     expenses: Provided, That if crop size is understated and/or 
     other uncontrollable events occur, the agency may exceed this 
     limitation by up to 10

[[Page 17850]]

     percent with notification to the Committees on Appropriations 
     of both Houses of Congress.

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


                     (including transfers of funds)

       Funds available under section 32 of the Act of August 24, 
     1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c), shall be used only for commodity 
     program expenses as authorized therein, and other related 
     operating expenses, except for: (1) transfers to the 
     Department of Commerce as authorized by the Fish and Wildlife 
     Act of August 8, 1956; (2) transfers otherwise provided in 
     this Act; and (3) not more than $15,392,000 for formulation 
     and administration of marketing agreements and orders 
     pursuant to the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 
     and the Agricultural Act of 1961.


                   payments to states and possessions

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

        Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the 
     United States Grain Standards Act, for the administration of 
     the Packers and Stockyards Act, for certifying procedures 
     used to protect purchasers of farm products, and the 
     standardization activities related to grain under the 
     Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, $39,690,000: Provided, 
     That this appropriation shall be available pursuant to law (7 
     U.S.C. 2250) for the alteration and repair of buildings and 
     improvements, but the cost of altering any one building 
     during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10 percent of the 
     current replacement value of the building.


        limitation on inspection and weighing services expenses

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

             Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Food Safety to administer the laws 
     enacted by the Congress for the Food Safety and Inspection 
     Service, $599,000.

                   Food Safety and Inspection Service

       For necessary expenses to carry out services authorized by 
     the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products 
     Inspection Act, and the Egg Products Inspection Act, 
     including not to exceed $50,000 for representation allowances 
     and for expenses pursuant to section 8 of the Act approved 
     August 3, 1956 (7 U.S.C. 1766), $785,261,000; and in 
     addition, $1,000,000 may be credited to this account from 
     fees collected for the cost of laboratory accreditation as 
     authorized by section 1327 of the Food, Agriculture, 
     Conservation and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 138f): Provided, 
     That this appropriation shall be available pursuant to law (7 
     U.S.C. 2250) for the alteration and repair of buildings and 
     improvements, but the cost of altering any one building 
     during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10 percent of the 
     current replacement value of the building.

    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, $636,000.

                          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, $1,016,836,000: Provided, That the Secretary 
     of Agriculture 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.


                         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), 
     $3,974,000.


                        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, $1,083,143,000, of 
     which $950,000,000 shall be for guaranteed loans and 
     $133,143,000 shall be for direct loans; operating loans, 
     $2,200,440,000, of which $1,330,000,000 shall be for 
     unsubsidized guaranteed loans, $252,937,000 shall be for 
     subsidized guaranteed loans and $617,503,000 shall be for 
     direct loans; Indian tribe land acquisition loans as 
     authorized by 25 U.S.C. 488, $2,000,000; 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, $34,528,000, of which $5,130,000 shall be for 
     guaranteed loans, and $29,398,000 shall be for direct loans; 
     operating loans, $165,633,000, of which $44,289,000 shall be 
     for unsubsidized guaranteed loans, $32,300,000 shall be for 
     subsidized guaranteed loans, and $89,044,000 shall be for 
     direct loans.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $298,136,000, of 
     which $290,136,000 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 Committees on 
     Appropriations 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 
     section 226A of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization 
     Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6933), $71,509,000: Provided, That not 
     to exceed $1,000 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 (7 U.S.C. 1516), such sums as may be 
     necessary, to remain available until expended.

                   Commodity Credit Corporation Fund


                 reimbursement for net realized losses

       For the current fiscal year, 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).


                       hazardous waste management

                        (limitation on expenses)

       For the current fiscal year, 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.

                                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, 
     $745,000.

                 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

[[Page 17851]]

     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, $850,004,000, to remain available 
     until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b), of which not less than 
     $9,215,000 is for snow survey and water forecasting, and not 
     less than $11,722,000 is for operation and establishment of 
     the plant materials centers, and of which not less than 
     $23,500,000 shall be for the grazing lands conservation 
     initiative: Provided, 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 qualified 
     local engineers may be temporarily employed at per diem rates 
     to perform the technical planning work of the Service: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds made available under 
     this paragraph by this or any other appropriations Act may be 
     used to provide technical assistance with respect to programs 
     listed in section 1241(a) of the Food Security Act of 1985 
     (16 U.S.C. 3841(a)).


                     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 (16 U.S.C. 1001-1009), $11,124,000: Provided, That none 
     of the funds made available under this paragraph by this or 
     any other appropriations Act may be used to provide technical 
     assistance with respect to programs listed in section 1241(a) 
     of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3841(a)).


               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 (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, $90,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended of which up to $10,000,000 shall be 
     available for the watersheds authorized under the Flood 
     Control Act (33 U.S.C. 701 and 16 U.S.C. 1006a): Provided, 
     That not to exceed $40,000,000 of this appropriation shall be 
     made available for technical assistance: 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: Provided further, 
     That the amount of federal funds that may be made available 
     to an eligible local organization for construction of a 
     particular rehabilitation project shall be equal to 65 
     percent of the total rehabilitation costs, but not to exceed 
     100 percent of actual construction costs incurred in the 
     rehabilitation: Provided further, That consistent with 
     existing statute, rehabilitation assistance provided may not 
     be used to perform operation and maintenance activities 
     specified in the agreement for the covered water resource 
     projects entered into between the Secretary and the eligible 
     local organization responsible for the works of improvement: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds made available under 
     this paragraph by this or any other appropriations Act may be 
     used to provide technical assistance with respect to programs 
     listed in section 1241(a) of the Food Security Act of 1985 
     (16 U.S.C. 3841(a)).


                    watershed rehabilitation program

       For necessary expenses to carry out rehabilitation of 
     structural measures, in accordance with section 14 of the 
     Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, as amended, 
     (16 U.S.C. 1012), and in accordance with the provisions of 
     laws relating to the activities of the Department, 
     $40,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That none of the funds made available under this paragraph by 
     this or any other appropriations Act may be used to provide 
     technical assistance with respect to programs listed in 
     section 1241(a) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3841(a)).


                 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 sections 31 and 
     32(l) 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 subtitle H of title XV of the 
     Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3451-3461), 
     $52,894,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That none of the funds made available under this paragraph by 
     this or any other appropriations Act may be used to provide 
     technical assistance with respect to programs listed in 
     section 1241(a) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3841(a)): Provided further, That a cooperative or 
     contribution agreement with a national association regarding 
     a Resource Conservation and Development program shall contain 
     the same matching, contribution requirements, and funding 
     level, set forth in a similar cooperative or contribution 
     agreement with a national association in fiscal year 2002: 
     Provided further, That not to exceed $3,504,300, the same 
     amount as in the budget, shall be available for national 
     headquarters activities.

                               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, 
     $636,000.


                  rural community advancement program

       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 and 381N of the Consolidated 
     Farm and Rural Development Act, $706,006,000, to remain 
     available until expended, of which $27,000,000 shall be for 
     rural community programs described in section 381E(d)(1) of 
     such Act; of which $605,006,000 shall be for the rural 
     utilities programs described in sections 381E(d)(2), 
     306C(a)(2), and 306D of such Act, of which not to exceed 
     $500,000 shall be available for the rural utilities program 
     described in section 306(a)(2)(B) of such Act, and of which 
     not to exceed $1,000,000 shall be available for the rural 
     utilities program described in section 306E of such Act; and 
     of which $74,000,000 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, $13,000,000 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, 
     nonprofit 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: Provided further, That 
     of the amount appropriated for rural utilities programs, not 
     to exceed $25,000,000 shall be for water and waste disposal 
     systems to benefit the Colonias along the United States/
     Mexico border, including grants pursuant to section 306C of 
     such Act; not to exceed $17,465,000 shall be for technical 
     assistance grants for rural water and waste systems pursuant 
     to section 306(a)(14) of such Act, of which $5,513,000 shall 
     be for Rural Community Assistance Programs and not to exceed 
     $13,000,000 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 
     $22,132,000 shall be available through June 30, 2004, for 
     authorized empowerment zones and enterprise communities and 
     communities designated by the Secretary of Agriculture as 
     Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones; of which $1,000,000 
     shall be for the rural community programs described in 
     section 381E(d)(1) of such Act, of which $12,582,000 shall be 
     for the rural utilities programs described in section 
     381E(d)(2)

[[Page 17852]]

     of such Act, and of which $8,550,000 shall be for the rural 
     business and cooperative development programs described in 
     section 381E(d)(3) of such Act.

                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; $146,495,000: 
     Provided, 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 appropriation.

                         Rural Housing Service


              rural housing insurance fund program account

                     (including transfers 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: $4,091,634,000 for loans to 
     section 502 borrowers, as determined by the Secretary, of 
     which $1,366,462,000 shall be for direct loans, and of which 
     not more than $2,725,172,000 shall be for unsubsidized 
     guaranteed loans; $35,003,000 for section 504 housing repair 
     loans; $116,545,000 for section 515 rental housing; 
     $100,000,000 for section 538 guaranteed multi-family housing 
     loans; $5,045,000 for section 524 site loans; $11,500,000 for 
     credit sales of acquired property, of which up to $1,500,000 
     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, $165,921,000, of which $126,018,000 shall be for 
     direct loans, and of which $39,903,000, to remain available 
     until expended, shall be for unsubsidized guaranteed loans; 
     section 504 housing repair loans, $9,612,000; section 515 
     rental housing, $50,126,000 of which $20,086,400 shall be for 
     repair and rehabilitation, and $30,039,600 shall be for new 
     construction; section 538 multi-family housing guaranteed 
     loans, $5,950,000; multi-family credit sales of acquired 
     property, $663,000; and section 523 self-help housing land 
     development loans, $154,000: Provided, That of the total 
     amount appropriated in this paragraph, $7,100,000 shall be 
     available through June 30, 2004, 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, $447,151,000, 
     which shall be transferred to and merged with the 
     appropriation for ``Rural Development, Salaries and 
     Expenses''.


                       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, $731,000,000; 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 the current fiscal 
     year 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), $34,772,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That of the total 
     amount appropriated, $1,000,000 shall be available through 
     June 30, 2004, 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 1490m, $42,222,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That of the total amount 
     appropriated, $1,800,000 shall be available through June 30, 
     2004, 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, $36,307,000, 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)), 
     $40,000,000.
       For the cost of direct loans, $17,308,000, as authorized by 
     the Rural Development Loan Fund (42 U.S.C. 9812(a)), of which 
     $1,724,000 shall be available through June 30, 2004, for 
     Federally Recognized Native American Tribes and of which 
     $3,449,000 shall be available through June 30, 2004, 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 
     of the total amount appropriated, $2,447,000 shall be 
     available through June 30, 2004, 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, $4,283,000 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, $16,120,000.
       For the cost of direct loans, including the cost of 
     modifying loans as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, $3,000,000.
       Of the funds derived from interest on the cushion of credit 
     payments in the current fiscal year, as authorized by section 
     313 of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, $3,000,000 
     shall not be obligated and $3,000,000 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), $13,000,000, of which 
     $2,500,000 shall be for cooperative agreements for the 
     appropriate technology transfer for rural areas program: 
     Provided, That not to exceed $1,500,000 shall be for 
     cooperatives or associations of cooperatives whose primary 
     focus is to provide assistance to small, minority producers, 
     of which not to exceed $500,000 shall be for cooperative 
     research agreements; and of which not to exceed $4,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended, shall be for value-added 
     agricultural product market development grants, as authorized 
     by section 6401 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 
     of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 1621 note).


       rural empowerment zones and enterprise communities grants

       For grants in connection with a second round of empowerment 
     zones and enterprise communities, $10,967,000, to remain 
     available until expended, for designated rural empowerment 
     zones and rural enterprise communities, as authorized by the 
     Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 and the Omnibus Consolidated and 
     Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 
     105-277).


                        renewable energy program

       For the cost of direct loans and grants, as authorized by 
     section 9006 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 
     2002 (7 U.S.C. 8106), $3,000,000 for direct renewable energy 
     loans and grants: Provided, That the cost of direct loans and 
     loan guarantees, including the cost of modifying such loans, 
     shall be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974.

                        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, 
     $240,000,000; municipal rate rural electric loans, 
     $1,000,000,000; loans made pursuant to section 306 of that 
     Act, rural electric, $2,000,000,000; Treasury rate direct 
     electric loans, $750,000,000; 5 percent rural 
     telecommunication loans, $145,000,000; cost of money rural 
     telecommunication loans, $300,000,000; and loans made 
     pursuant to section 306 of that Act, rural telecommunication 
     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

[[Page 17853]]

     guaranteed loans authorized by sections 305 and 306 of the 
     Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 935 and 936), as 
     follows: cost of rural electric loans, $60,000, and the cost 
     of telecommunication loans, $125,000: 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, $38,166,000 
     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.
       For administrative expenses, including audits, necessary to 
     carry out the loan programs and continue to service existing 
     loans, $3,182,000, to be derived by transfer from the 
     shareholder's equity, contained in the unobligated balances 
     in the Rural Telephone Bank Liquidating Account, which shall 
     be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     ``Rural Development, Salaries and Expenses''.


         distance learning, telemedicine, and Broadband Program

       For the principal amount of direct distance learning and 
     telemedicine loans, $300,000,000; and for the principal 
     amount of broadband telecommunication loans, $336,000,000.
       For grants for telemedicine and distance learning services 
     in rural areas, as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 950aaa et seq., 
     $25,000,000, to remain available until expended.
       For the cost of direct and guaranteed broadband loans, as 
     authorized by 7 U.S.C. 901, et seq., $9,116,000: Provided, 
     That the cost of direct loans shall be as defined in section 
     502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       In addition, $8,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, for a grant program to finance broadband 
     transmission in areas that meet the definition of ``rural 
     area'' used for the Broadband Loan Program authorized by 7 
     U.S.C. 901.

                                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, $599,000.

                       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; $11,418,441,000, to remain 
     available through September 30, 2005, of which $6,718,780,000 
     is hereby appropriated and $4,699,661,000 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 $6,000,000 
     shall be available for the Food and Nutrition Service to 
     conduct a study of certification error and its effect on 
     expenditures in the National School Lunch and School 
     Breakfast Programs and an assessment of the feasibility of 
     using income data matching in those Programs: Provided 
     further, 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 $5,235,000 shall be available for independent 
     verification of school food service claims.


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

       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), 
     $4,588,310,000, to remain available through September 30, 
     2005, of which $20,000,000 shall be for a breastfeeding 
     support initiative in addition to the activities specified in 
     section 17(h)(3)(A); $25,000,000 shall be for a management 
     information system initiative; and $25,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended, shall be placed in reserve for use 
     in only such amounts, and in such manner, as the Secretary 
     determines necessary, notwithstanding section 17(i) of the 
     Child Nutrition Act, to provide funds to support 
     participation, should costs or participation exceed budget 
     estimates: Provided, That notwithstanding section 
     17(h)(10)(A) of such Act, $14,000,000 shall be available for 
     the purposes specified in section 17(h)(10)(B): Provided 
     further, That notwithstanding section 17(g)(5) of such Act, 
     $4,000,000 shall be available for pilot projects to prevent 
     childhood obesity: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     made available under this heading shall be used for studies 
     and evaluations: 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.), $27,745,981,000, of which 
     $2,000,000,000 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.


                      commodity assistance program

       For necessary expenses to carry out disaster assistance and 
     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); the Emergency Food Assistance 
     Act of 1983; special assistance for the nuclear affected 
     islands, as authorized by section 103(h)(2) of the Compacts 
     of Free Association Act of 1985; and the Farmers' Market 
     Nutrition Program, as authorized by section 17(m) of the 
     Child Nutrition Act of 1966, $166,072,000, to remain 
     available through September 30, 2005: Provided, That none of 
     these funds shall be available to reimburse the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation for commodities donated to the program.


                   nutrition programs administration

       For necessary administrative expenses of the domestic 
     nutrition assistance programs funded under this Act, 
     $140,512,000, 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 $7,500,000 shall be available to improve integrity in 
     the Food Stamp and Child Nutrition programs.

                                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), 
     $133,924,000: 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.


                 public law 480 title I 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, $103,887,000, 
     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, $4,041,000, of which 
     $1,066,000 may be transferred to and merged with the 
     appropriation for ``Foreign Agricultural Service, Salaries 
     and Expenses'', and of which $2,975,000 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 transfer of funds)

       For ocean freight differential costs for the shipment of 
     agricultural commodities under title I of the Agricultural 
     Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 and under the 
     Food for Progress Act of 1985, $28,000,000,

[[Page 17854]]

     to remain available until expended: Provided, That funds made 
     available for the cost of agreements under title I of the 
     Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 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 title ii grants

       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, for commodities supplied in 
     connection with dispositions abroad under title II of said 
     Act, $1,192,000,000, to remain available until expended.


  McGovern-Dole international food for education and child nutrition 
                             program grants

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 3107 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 
     2002 (7 U.S.C. 1736o-1), $56,874,000, to remain available 
     until expended.


       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, $4,312,000; 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 $3,327,000 may be transferred to and 
     merged with the appropriation for ``Foreign Agricultural 
     Service, Salaries and Expenses'', and of which $985,000 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

                     (including transfers of funds)

       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; 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; and notwithstanding 
     section 521 of Public Law 107-188; $1,668,249,000: Provided, 
     That of the amount provided under this heading, $249,825,000 
     shall be derived from prescription drug user fees authorized 
     by 21 U.S.C. 379h, and shall be credited to this account and 
     remain available until expended, and $29,190,000 shall be 
     derived from medical device user fees authorized by 21 U.S.C. 
     379j, and shall be credited to this account and remain 
     available until expended: Provided further, That fees derived 
     from prescription drug and medical device applications 
     received during fiscal year 2004 shall be subject to the 
     fiscal year 2004 limitation: Provided further, That any 
     prescription drug or medical device user fee collected in 
     fiscal year 2004 that exceeds this limitation shall be 
     credited to this account and remain available until expended, 
     in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 379h(g)(4) and 379j(h)(4): 
     Provided further, That none of these funds shall be used to 
     develop, establish, or operate any program of user fees 
     authorized by 31 U.S.C. 9701: Provided further, That of the 
     total amount appropriated: (1) $412,462,000 shall be for the 
     Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition and related 
     field activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs; (2) 
     $478,650,000 shall be for the Center for Drug Evaluation and 
     Research and related field activities in the Office of 
     Regulatory Affairs, of which no less than $13,357,000 shall 
     be available for grants and contracts awarded under section 5 
     of the Orphan Drug Act (21 U.S.C. 360ee); (3) $168,836,000 
     shall be for the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research 
     and for related field activities in the Office of Regulatory 
     Affairs; (4) $84,646,000 shall be for the Center for 
     Veterinary Medicine and for related field activities in the 
     Office of Regulatory Affairs; (5) $209,285,000 shall be for 
     the Center for Devices and Radiological Health and for 
     related field activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs; 
     (6) $39,887,000 shall be for the National Center for 
     Toxicological Research; (7) $40,851,000 shall be for Rent and 
     Related activities, other than the amounts paid to the 
     General Services Administration for rent; (8) $119,795,000 
     shall be for payments to the General Services Administration 
     for rent; and (9) $113,837,000 shall be for other activities, 
     including the Office of the Commissioner; the Office of 
     Management and Systems; the Office of External Relations; the 
     Office of Policy and Planning; and central services for these 
     offices: Provided further, That funds may be transferred from 
     one specified activity to another with the prior approval of 
     the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
       In addition, mammography user fees authorized by 42 U.S.C. 
     263b may be credited to this account, to remain available 
     until expended.
       In addition, export certification user fees authorized by 
     21 U.S.C. 381 may be credited to this account, to remain 
     available until expended.


                        buildings and facilities

       For plans, construction, repair, improvement, extension, 
     alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities of 
     or used by the Food and Drug Administration, where not 
     otherwise provided, $6,000,000 to remain available until 
     expended.

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                  Commodity Futures Trading Commission

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the 
     Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), including the 
     purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles, and the rental 
     of space (to include multiple year leases) in the District of 
     Columbia and elsewhere, $88,435,000, including not to exceed 
     $3,000 for official reception and representation expenses.

                       FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION


                 limitation on administrative expenses

       Not to exceed $40,900,000 (from assessments collected from 
     farm credit institutions and from the Federal Agricultural 
     Mortgage Corporation) shall be obligated during the current 
     fiscal year for administrative expenses as authorized under 
     12 U.S.C. 2249: Provided, That this limitation shall not 
     apply to expenses associated with receiverships.

                     TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 701. Within the unit limit of cost fixed by law, 
     appropriations and authorizations made for the Department of 
     Agriculture for the current fiscal year under this Act shall 
     be available for the purchase, in addition to those 
     specifically provided for, of not to exceed 398 passenger 
     motor vehicles, of which 396 shall be for replacement only, 
     and for the hire of such vehicles.
       Sec. 702. Funds in this Act available to the Department of 
     Agriculture shall be available for uniforms or allowances 
     therefor as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902).
       Sec. 703. Funds appropriated by this Act shall be available 
     for employment pursuant to the second sentence of section 
     706(a) of the Department of Agriculture Organic Act of 1944 
     (7 U.S.C. 2225) and 5 U.S.C. 3109.
       Sec. 704. The Secretary of Agriculture may transfer 
     unobligated balances of discretionary funds appropriated by 
     this Act or other available unobligated discretionary 
     balances of the Department of Agriculture to the Working 
     Capital Fund for the acquisition of plant and capital 
     equipment necessary for the delivery of financial, 
     administrative, and information technology services of 
     primary benefit to the agencies of the Department of 
     Agriculture: Provided, That none of the funds made available 
     by this Act or any other Act shall be transferred to the 
     Working Capital Fund without the prior approval of the agency 
     administrator: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     transferred to the Working Capital Fund pursuant to this 
     section shall be available for obligation without the prior 
     approval of the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses 
     of Congress.
       Sec. 705. New obligational authority provided for the 
     following appropriation items in this Act shall remain 
     available until expended: Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
     Service, the contingency fund to meet emergency conditions, 
     information technology infrastructure, fruit fly program, 
     emerging plant pests, boll weevil program, and up to 25 
     percent of the screwworm program; Food Safety and Inspection 
     Service, field automation and information management project; 
     Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, 
     funds for competitive research grants (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)), 
     funds for the Research, Education, and Economics Information 
     System (REEIS), and funds for the Native American 
     Institutions Endowment Fund; Farm Service Agency, salaries 
     and expenses funds made available to county committees; 
     Foreign Agricultural Service, middle-income country training 
     program and up to $2,000,000 of the Foreign Agricultural 
     Service appropriation solely for the purpose of offsetting 
     fluctuations in international currency exchange rates, 
     subject to documentation by the Foreign Agricultural Service.
       Sec. 706. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 707. Not to exceed $50,000 of the appropriations 
     available to the Department of Agriculture in this Act shall 
     be available to provide appropriate orientation and language 
     training pursuant to section 606C of the Act of August 28, 
     1954 (7 U.S.C. 1766b).
       Sec. 708. No funds appropriated by this Act may be used to 
     pay negotiated indirect cost rates on cooperative agreements 
     or similar arrangements between the United States Department 
     of Agriculture and nonprofit institutions in excess of 10 
     percent of the total direct cost of the agreement when the 
     purpose of such cooperative arrangements is to carry out 
     programs of mutual interest between the two parties. This 
     does not preclude appropriate payment of indirect costs on 
     grants

[[Page 17855]]

     and contracts with such institutions when such indirect costs 
     are computed on a similar basis for all agencies for which 
     appropriations are provided in this Act.
       Sec. 709. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to restrict the authority of the Commodity Credit Corporation 
     to lease space for its own use or to lease space on behalf of 
     other agencies of the Department of Agriculture when such 
     space will be jointly occupied.
       Sec. 710. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to pay indirect costs charged against competitive 
     agricultural research, education, or extension grant awards 
     issued by the Cooperative State Research, Education, and 
     Extension Service that exceed 20 percent of total Federal 
     funds provided under each award: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding section 1462 of the National Agricultural 
     Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 
     U.S.C. 3310), funds provided by this Act for grants awarded 
     competitively by the Cooperative State Research, Education, 
     and Extension Service shall be available to pay full 
     allowable indirect costs for each grant awarded under section 
     9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638).
       Sec. 711. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     all loan levels provided in this Act shall be considered 
     estimates, not limitations.
       Sec. 712. Appropriations to the Department of Agriculture 
     for the cost of direct and guaranteed loans made available in 
     the current fiscal year shall remain available until expended 
     to cover obligations made in the current fiscal year for the 
     following accounts: the Rural Development Loan Fund program 
     account, the Rural Telephone Bank program account, the Rural 
     Electrification and Telecommunication Loans program account, 
     the Rural Housing Insurance Fund program account, and the 
     Rural Economic Development Loans program account.
       Sec. 713. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     retire more than 5 percent of the Class A stock of the Rural 
     Telephone Bank or to maintain any account or subaccount 
     within the accounting records of the Rural Telephone Bank the 
     creation of which has not specifically been authorized by 
     statute: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this Act may be used to transfer to the Treasury 
     or to the Federal Financing Bank any unobligated balance of 
     the Rural Telephone Bank telephone liquidating account which 
     is in excess of current requirements and such balance shall 
     receive interest as set forth for financial accounts in 
     section 505(c) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990.
       Sec. 714. Of the funds made available by this Act, not more 
     than $1,800,000 shall be used to cover necessary expenses of 
     activities related to all advisory committees, panels, 
     commissions, and task forces of the Department of 
     Agriculture, except for panels used to comply with negotiated 
     rule makings and panels used to evaluate competitively 
     awarded grants.
       Sec. 715. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     used to carry out section 410 of the Federal Meat Inspection 
     Act (21 U.S.C. 679a) or section 30 of the Poultry Products 
     Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 471).
       Sec. 716. No employee of the Department of Agriculture may 
     be detailed or assigned from an agency or office funded by 
     this Act to any other agency or office of the Department for 
     more than 30 days unless the individual's employing agency or 
     office is fully reimbursed by the receiving agency or office 
     for the salary and expenses of the employee for the period of 
     assignment.
       Sec. 717. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available to the Department of Agriculture shall be used to 
     transmit or otherwise make available to any non-Department of 
     Agriculture employee questions or responses to questions that 
     are a result of information requested for the appropriations 
     hearing process.
       Sec. 718. None of the funds made available to the 
     Department of Agriculture by this Act may be used to acquire 
     new information technology systems or significant upgrades, 
     as determined by the Office of the Chief Information Officer, 
     without the approval of the Chief Information Officer and the 
     concurrence of the Executive Information Technology 
     Investment Review Board: Provided, That notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, none of the funds appropriated or 
     otherwise made available by this Act may be transferred to 
     the Office of the Chief Information Officer without the prior 
     approval of the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses 
     of Congress.
       Sec. 719. (a) None of the funds provided by this Act, or 
     provided by previous Appropriations Acts to the agencies 
     funded by this Act that remain available for obligation or 
     expenditure in the current fiscal year, or provided from any 
     accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the 
     collection of fees available to the agencies funded by this 
     Act, shall be available for obligation or expenditure through 
     a reprogramming of funds which: (1) creates new programs; (2) 
     eliminates a program, project, or activity; (3) increases 
     funds or personnel by any means for any project or activity 
     for which funds have been denied or restricted; (4) relocates 
     an office or employees; (5) reorganizes offices, programs, or 
     activities; or (6) contracts out or privatizes any functions 
     or activities presently performed by Federal employees; 
     unless the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of 
     Congress are notified 15 days in advance of such 
     reprogramming of funds.
       (b) None of the funds provided by this Act, or provided by 
     previous Appropriations Acts to the agencies funded by this 
     Act that remain available for obligation or expenditure in 
     the current fiscal year, or provided from any accounts in the 
     Treasury of the United States derived by the collection of 
     fees available to the agencies funded by this Act, shall be 
     available for obligation or expenditure for activities, 
     programs, or projects through a reprogramming of funds in 
     excess of $500,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, that: 
     (1) augments existing programs, projects, or activities; (2) 
     reduces by 10 percent funding for any existing program, 
     project, or activity, or numbers of personnel by 10 percent 
     as approved by Congress; or (3) results from any general 
     savings from a reduction in personnel which would result in a 
     change in existing programs, activities, or projects as 
     approved by Congress; unless the Committees on Appropriations 
     of both Houses of Congress are notified 15 days in advance of 
     such reprogramming of funds.
       (c) The Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services, or the Chairman of the Commodity Futures 
     Trading Commission shall notify the Committees on 
     Appropriations of both Houses of Congress before implementing 
     a program or activity not carried out during the previous 
     fiscal year unless the program or activity is funded by this 
     Act or specifically funded by any other Act.
       Sec. 720. With the exception of funds needed to administer 
     and conduct oversight of grants awarded and obligations 
     incurred in prior fiscal years, none of the funds 
     appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other 
     Act may be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel 
     to carry out the provisions of section 401 of Public Law 105-
     185, the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems 
     (7 U.S.C. 7621).
       Sec. 721. None of the funds appropriated by this Act or any 
     other Act shall be used to pay the salaries and expenses of 
     personnel who prepare or submit appropriations language as 
     part of the President's Budget submission to the Congress of 
     the United States for programs under the jurisdiction of the 
     Appropriations Subcommittees on Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies that assumes revenues or reflects a reduction from 
     the previous year due to user fees proposals that have not 
     been enacted into law prior to the submission of the Budget 
     unless such Budget submission identifies which additional 
     spending reductions should occur in the event the user fees 
     proposals are not enacted prior to the date of the convening 
     of a committee of conference for the fiscal year 2005 
     appropriations Act.
       Sec. 722. None of the funds made available by this Act or 
     any other Act may be used to close or relocate a state Rural 
     Development office unless or until cost effectiveness and 
     enhancement of program delivery have been determined.
       Sec. 723. In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated or 
     made available by this Act, $3,000,000 is appropriated for 
     the purpose of providing Bill Emerson and Mickey Leland 
     Hunger Fellowships, as authorized by section 4404 of Public 
     Law 107-171 (2 U.S.C. 1161).
       Sec. 724. Notwithstanding section 412 of the Agricultural 
     Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 
     1736f), any balances available to carry out title III of such 
     Act as of the date of enactment of this Act, and any 
     recoveries and reimbursements that become available to carry 
     out title III of such Act, may be used to carry out title II 
     of such Act.
       Sec. 725. Section 375(e)(6)(B) of the Consolidated Farm and 
     Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2008j(e)(6)(B)) is amended by 
     striking ``$26,499,000'' and inserting ``$26,998,000''.
       Sec. 726. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Natural Resources Conservation Service may provide financial 
     and technical assistance through the Watershed and Flood 
     Prevention Operations program for the Ditch 26 project in 
     Arkansas.
       Sec. 727. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary shall consider the County of Lawrence, Ohio; the 
     City of Havelock, North Carolina; the City of Portsmouth, 
     Ohio; the City of Atascadero, California; the City of 
     Binghamton, New York; the Town of Vestal, New York; the City 
     of Ithaca, New York; the City of Casa Grande, Arizona; and 
     the City of Clarksdale, Mississippi, as meeting the 
     eligibility requirements for loans and grants programs in the 
     Rural Development mission area.
       Sec. 728. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Natural Resources Conservation Service shall provide 
     financial and technical assistance to the DuPage County, 
     Illinois, Kress Creek Watershed Plan, from funds available 
     for the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations program, 
     not to exceed $1,600,000 and Rockhouse Creek Watershed, 
     Leslie County, Kentucky, not to exceed $1,000,000.
       Sec. 729. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality 
     of the

[[Page 17856]]

     United States Government, except pursuant to a transfer made 
     by, or transfer authority provided in, this Act or any other 
     appropriation Act.
       Sec. 730. Agencies and offices of the Department of 
     Agriculture may utilize any unobligated salaries and expenses 
     funds to reimburse the Office of the General Counsel for 
     salaries and expenses of personnel, and for other related 
     expenses, incurred in representing such agencies and offices 
     in the resolution of complaints by employees or applicants 
     for employment, and in cases and other matters pending before 
     the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Federal 
     Labor Relations Authority, or the Merit Systems Protection 
     Board with the prior approval of the Committees on 
     Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
       Sec. 731. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     by this Act may be used to pay the salaries and expenses of 
     personnel to carry out section 14(h)(1) of the Watershed 
     Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1012(h)(1)).
       Sec. 732. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     by this Act, or any other Act, may be used to pay the 
     salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out the Rural 
     Strategic Investment Program authorized by subtitle I of the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2009dd 
     through dd-7) in excess of $2,000,000.
       Sec. 733. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     by this Act may be used to pay the salaries and expenses of 
     personnel to carry out the Rural Firefighters and Emergency 
     Personnel Grant Program authorized by section 6405 of Public 
     Law 107-171 (7 U.S.C. 2655).
       Sec. 734. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries and 
     expenses of personnel to carry out the provisions of sections 
     7404(a)(1) and 7404(c)(1) of Public Law 107-171.
       Sec. 735. The Agricultural Marketing Service and the Grain 
     Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, that have 
     statutory authority to purchase interest bearing investments 
     outside of Treasury, are not required to establish 
     obligations and outlays for those investments, provided those 
     investments are insured by FDIC or are collateralized at the 
     Federal Reserve with securities approved by the Federal 
     Reserve, operating under the guidelines of the U.S. Treasury.
       Sec. 736. Of the funds made available under section 27(a) 
     of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), the 
     Secretary may use up to $10,000,000 for costs associated with 
     the distribution of commodities.
       Sec. 737. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries and 
     expenses of personnel to enroll in excess of 200,000 acres in 
     the calendar year 2004 wetlands reserve program as authorized 
     by 16 U.S.C. 3837.
       Sec. 738. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries and 
     expenses of personnel who carry out an environmental quality 
     incentives program authorized by chapter 4 of subtitle D of 
     title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa 
     et seq.) in excess of $975,000,000.
       Sec. 739. The Administrator of the Agricultural Research 
     Service may make available by outlease agreements with other 
     Federal agencies or non-Federal public or private entities 
     any unused or underused portion or interest of or interest in 
     any agency real and related personal property, and may retain 
     and use the proceeds of such agreements in carrying out the 
     programs of the agency. Property proposed for outlease must 
     not be property otherwise required to be reported excess 
     under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 
     1949, as amended. Outleases shall be made competitively, and 
     be based on the fair market value of the property.
       Sec. 740. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries and 
     expenses of personnel to carry out section 9006 of Public Law 
     107-171, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002.
       Sec. 741. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this or any other Act shall be used to pay the 
     salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out section 6103 
     of Public Law 107-171.
       Sec. 742. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this or any other Act shall be used to pay the 
     salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out section 6401 
     of Public Law 107-171, the Farm Security and Rural Investment 
     Act of 2002.
       Sec. 743. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act shall be used for the implementation of 
     Country of Origin Labeling for meat or meat products.
       Sec. 744. Any unobligated balances in the Alternative 
     Agricultural Research and Commercialization Revolving Fund 
     are hereby rescinded.
       Sec. 745. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act shall be used to carry out a 
     Conservation Security Program authorized in section 
     1241(a)(3) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3841(a)(3)).
       Sec. 746. Section 726 of Division A of Public Law 108-7 is 
     amended by striking ``, as authorized by section 4404 of 
     Public Law 107-171 (2 U.S.C. 1161)'' and inserting ``through 
     the Congressional Hunger Center''.
       Sec. 747. (a) Assistance for Commercial Tree losses.--The 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall use $5,000,000 of the funds of 
     the Commodity Credit Corporation to provide assistance under 
     the Tree Assistance Program, subtitle C of title X of the 
     Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8201 
     et seq.), to tree-fruit growers located in a federally 
     declared disaster area in the State of New York who suffered 
     tree losses in 2003 as a result of an April 4-6, 2003, 
     icestorm.
       (b) Offset.--The amount appropriated by this Act under the 
     heading ``rural community advancement program'' is hereby 
     reduced by $5,000,000.
       Sec. 748. Section 204(a)(3) of the Agricultural Trade 
     Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1724(a)(3)) 
     is amended by striking ``and Committee'' and inserting ``, 
     the Committee on Appropriations, and the Committee''.
       Sec. 749. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act for the Food and Drug Administration 
     may be used under section 801 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act to prevent an individual not in the business of 
     importing a prescription drug within the meaning of section 
     801(g) of such Act, wholesalers, or pharmacists from 
     importing a prescription drug which complies with sections 
     501, 502, and 505.

  Mr. BONILLA (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the bill through page 72, line 23, be considered as read, 
printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any points of order against provisions in 
this portion of the bill?
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, as we all know, we are proceeding with this bill under 
regular order. I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur), my ranking member, for once again helping to produce the best 
bill we possibly could under the circumstances. We were working under 
some incredible fiscal limitations this year versus last year, and this 
is a bill that was produced by a subcommittee that has a history of 
working together.
  The last time we had our bill on the floor, we had over 400 votes in 
support of the bill; and I am very proud of that. I think every member 
of the subcommittee understands that we try to work with every last 
person and try to honor every request that they have. We cannot always 
do everything that everybody wants, but we certainly give it our best 
shot. This is the year, as many Members know, that we also had to deal 
with over 2,300 individual requests. That is a lot of requests that our 
good staff has to keep track of day in and day out as we moved toward 
this day; and I would like to commend the staff, both the majority and 
the minority, as they have worked so diligently especially in the last 
few days around the clock to try to get us to this point on the floor 
so we could have a good bill to present to the folks.
  So I am very proud of this product. Again, nobody always gets 
everything they want in bills like this, but we certainly have done the 
best we can.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. It fails to 
fully protect farmers and consumers. The legislation permits big 
corporate agriculture to reap massive profits while small family 
farmers struggle to make a dollar. With respect to meatpacker audits, 
the administration has asked for $1 million for the Grain-Inspection, 
Packers and Stockyards Administration to audit the four largest steer 
and heifer meatpackers, for compliance with the Packers and Stockyards 
Act. This might sound like a routine request, but it is not. This will 
be the first time in the 82-year history of the Packers and Stockyards 
Act that the agency has audited a large packer, but the bill does not 
provide this funding. Republicans must know that such an audit would 
show significant problems with the meatpackers, thus their refusal to 
fund it. At a time when the four largest meatpackers control 80 percent 
of the market, the American public should at least know the truth.

[[Page 17857]]

  I want to indicate my agreement with the minority committee report 
that was so ably represented by the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Ms. Kaptur). The report pointed out that with respect to the 
Conservation Security Program that this bill eliminates all funding for 
this program. This is despite the fact that this program will provide 
assistance to farmers to adopt conservation methods on working farms. 
This is unlike a number of other programs that take land out of 
production for conservation; and assistance for conservation on working 
farms has been sorely neglected in the past, and this program 
represents an essential attempt that would remedy that problem.
  The Wetlands Reserve Program, in a recent publication, the committee 
has pointed out that the USDA referred to this program as the ``premier 
wetland restoration program,'' but the bill cuts new enrollment in this 
program by 20 percent in 2004. The program has a backlog of over 
736,000 acres. That is why the farm conferees increased allowable 
acreage, and this amendment unfortunately will thwart that effort.
  The Environmental Quality Incentive program is one that has gained a 
lot of discussion in this country. The bill reduces this program by $25 
million in 2004. This will mean there will be a cut of 1,450 producers 
who will not be able to get equipped funding in 2004. And in addition, 
the backlog last year for the program was $1.5 billion, which caused 
many producers to give up on the program. Another limit will discourage 
those who still want to participate.
  The guides to renewable energy, the minority report has correctly 
pointed out that the bill zeroes out funding for this program. This 
program would provide grants and loans to farmers and ranchers and 
small rural businesses to buy renewable energy systems and to make 
energy efficiency improvements. Now, here we are at a time when we are 
seeing sharp increases in electric prices. We have seen spikes in 
natural gas prices, and we are expecting more increases. These 
increases could devastate small farmers, ranchers, and businesses. Any 
bill that would zero out renewable energy, therefore, is not advisable.
  With respect to country-of-origin labeling, the minority committee 
report has appropriately pointed out that the bill prevents the 
implementation of country-of-origin labels for meat and meat products. 
We have to understand that it is really basically a consumer's right to 
know where the goods they are consuming come from.

                              {time}  1245

  The House unanimously supported this idea when it instructed its 
conferees on the farm bill to support country of origin labeling for 
both meat and perishable products. All Americans are concerned about 
food safety and inspection. The bill provides about $12 million less 
than requested for food safety and inspection.
  The minority committee report points out that under the budget 
request these funds would not have gone directly into inspection 
activities, but, given the large number of recalls in 2002 and the 
ongoing concern about the agency's performance, the $12 million should 
have been provided for increased inspection and sampling.
  There are very few areas where the American public has a greater 
interest than the area of food safety and inspection. People really 
want to be assured that our government is doing what it can to make 
sure that the food which people are consuming has in fact been 
inspected and is in fact safe. This is another deficiency in this bill.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Ballance

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Ballance:
       Under the heading ``common computing environment'', insert 
     after the dollar amount on page 3, line 9, the following: 
     ``(reduced by $8,656,000)''.
       Under the heading ``Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
     Civil Rights'', insert after the dollar amount on page 4, 
     line 6, the following: ``(increased by $411,000)''.
       Under the heading ``Departmental Administration'', insert 
     after the dollar amount on page 6, line 3, the following: 
     ``(increased by $2,005,000)''.
       Under the heading ``CSREES-research and education 
     activities'', insert after the dollar amounts on page 11, 
     line 13, and page 12, line 16, the following: ``(increased by 
     $600,000)''.
       Under the heading ``outreach for socially disadvantaged 
     farmers'', insert after the dollar amount on page 16, line 
     12, the following: ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.

  Mr. BALLANCE (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. BALLANCE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the floor leaders 
of this bill on both sides. I appreciate this opportunity on behalf of 
myself and my colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca) and 
the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. Chairman, I am deeply concerned about the state of minority 
affairs at USDA. We know that on April 1 of last year, Mr. Vernon 
Parker, the first USDA Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, was sworn 
in and given the enormous task of improving how minorities are 
currently treated at USDA, preempting future civil rights problems at 
USDA and righting past wrongs.
  I applaud the President for his efforts in creating this Office of 
Civil Rights, but I urge my colleagues, and the reason I am standing 
with this amendment, is to not let this office be only window dressing 
for this very serious matter.
  In the 1994 report commissioned by USDA, it was pointed out that 
minority participation in Farm Service Agency programs is particularly 
low; and minorities receive less than their fair share of USDA funding 
for crop payments, disaster payments and loans. The report found gross 
deficiencies in USDA data collection and handling that helped these 
minority farmers.
  Mr. Chairman, there are currently 11 class action lawsuits pending 
against USDA, all of which allege discrimination by USDA. There is a 
Latino farmer lawsuit, a Native American farm lawsuit and others, and 
the famous case of Pickford versus Glickman was settled in 1999. Since 
then we have spent over $800 million, but there are still 2,000 cases 
sitting around at USDA gathering dust waiting to be reviewed in 
connection with the Pickford case.
  We are hemorrhaging money. We have an Office of Civil Rights. It is 
underfunded. We met with Mr. Parker. He has a 90-day plan where he 
wants to attack this issue, but he has two staffers in addition to 
himself, and he has no money.
  This amendment would allow that office to be properly funded. It 
would also allow about $2 million to go into the Office of Civil Rights 
so that they can review these old cases, and it would allow some 
funding to go for the benefit of Latino population education.
  We think that this $8 million we are seeking here is meaningful to 
address all of these civil rights issues. We think it would not only 
serve the Department but it would serve this Congress and would serve 
this country. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I will be brief and to the point. This has been a tough 
budget year. This is a tough bill, but it is a fair bill, and the 
gentleman brings up some very good points that need to be addressed. 
But, again, having done the best we can possibly do under the 
circumstances, I hope that people understand that we wished we could 
have done more but we were just not able to.
  Certainly the accounts that this amendment would increase were not 
treated unfairly in any way, and this is how they are funded in the 
bill. For example, the Office of Civil Rights is at last year's level 
plus increased pay cost. Departmental Administration is at last year's 
level plus increased pay cost. Hispanic-Serving Institutions is held at 
last year's level, so there is no cut there, which in this day and age 
I believe people should be pleased with an outcome like that. The 
Outreach Program is also at last year's level.

[[Page 17858]]

  The gentleman's amendment would do the following: It would more than 
double the Office of Civil Rights, giving that office a 104 percent 
increase; increase the Departmental Administration account by 5 
percent; increase Hispanic-Service Institutions programs by 15 percent; 
and increase the Outreach Program by a whooping 144 percent.
  Let me emphasize that if we had the money to do this we would be 
doing cartwheels in supporting these kinds of increases, but we are 
doing the best we can under the limitations we have in putting this 
bill together.
  The money that would be taken from the USDA's Common Computing 
Environment Account, and while that does not sound like a grand 
program, let me emphasize that this takes care of the way that a lot of 
these programs are processed, like the work at the Farm Service Agency, 
the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Rural Economic and 
Community Development Programs. This amendment would take $8.6 million 
away from USDA's ability to meet those needs, and that would indeed 
create a lot of hardship out in the heartland.
  Mr. Chairman, we worked very hard to present a well-considered and 
fair bill to the House. I ask Members to stick with the committee and 
defeat this amendment.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I think it is 
important for the House to understand that what we are talking about 
here is trying to assist minority farmers to be able to get experts in 
the field to help them obtain the best technology and environmental 
improvements in farming, to be able to be more competitive.
  We know that, historically, whenever family farmers are having 
difficulties, it is always the minority farmers who find it most 
troubling to be able to survive.
  This bill, when the work was being done, discovered a disturbing 
discrepancy for funding our Nation's land grant colleges of agriculture 
between funding for those land grant institutions established in 1890, 
all of which are historically black colleges and universities, and 
those established in 1962, which are predominantly non-minority.
  I think the sponsors of this are trying to do the right thing in 
making sure that the inequities that have been long-standing and 
historic are addressed and that efforts are made in these difficult 
times to be able to establish fairness. Because this really is a 
question of fairness, whether or not we are going to be able to have an 
agricultural program that is going to make sure that minorities who 
have worked very hard to try to establish a place in agriculture will 
have available to them the kind of expertise that is available to many 
farmers generally.
  So I rise in support of this amendment, and I urge Members to do 
likewise.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of this amendment that I 
helped develop in collaboration with Representatives Thompson and 
Ballance. This amendment is important because it restores funding to 
help end discrimination and prioritizes other significant funding to 
help minorities in the field of agriculture.
  The U.S. Department of Agriculture has institutional problems that 
must be resolved.
  The problems within the USDA are so severe that the civil rights 
complaints have cost the federal government hundreds of millions of 
dollars in settlements and awards.
  Fixing the civil rights complaint process and properly funding 
minority initiatives are necessary to permanently end a history of 
discrimination.
  The USDA Inspector General, General Accounting Office, and the USDA 
Civil Rights Action Team have all written numerous reports documenting 
the problems at the Office of Civil Rights. Yet, employees responsible 
for discrimination settlements remain employed and the system as a 
whole remains unchanged.
  In attempt to reform the problems at the USDA, we created the office 
of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights to oversee reform at the 
agency. But sadly, we have failed to fully fund this office.
  Investing in the elimination of discrimination at the USDA will not 
only help save the federal government money in the long run, but it 
will help save employees and farmers the heartache and humiliation 
associated with discrimination.
  Discrimination is morally reprehensible, and an unnecessary expense 
to the federal government. We must invest in the agency in order to 
correct the wrongs.
  This amendment is also crucial to help end discrimination because it 
increases funding for Hispanic Serving Institutions by $600,000. These 
institutions are great sources of innovation and deserve funding to 
continue generating advances in agricultural science. We must stop the 
long-standing practice of underfunding these institutions.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support these modest 
investments that will yield greater savings from discrimination 
lawsuits and earn goodwill with the minority agriculture community.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballance).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Blumenauer

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Blumenauer:
       Under the heading ``Agriculture Buildings and Facilities 
     and Rental Payments'', insert after the dollar amount on page 
     5, line 1, the following: ``(reduced by $800,000)''.
       Under the heading ``Office of the Inspector General'', 
     insert after the dollar amount on page 7, line 18, the 
     following: ``(increased by $800,000)''.

  Mr. BLUMENAUER (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 
Oregon?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment this afternoon 
together with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) to provide 
$800,000 for improved enforcement for the Federal animal fighting law. 
It is not just enough to fight a law, Mr. Chairman. It must be 
enforced.
  In May, 160 Representatives and Senators requested this $800,000 
increase for animal fighting enforcement in letters to the Committee on 
Appropriation's Subcommittee on Agriculture. The broad, bipartisan 
support reflects our constituents' concern for meaningful enforcement 
of the Federal animal fighting law.
  Fifty-five State and local sheriff's offices, State police 
departments from around the country, including Kansas, my home State of 
Oregon, Colorado, Texas, West Virginia, Michigan, Wisconsin and others, 
have called on Congress to provide this money so that USDA will improve 
its enforcement for the animal fighting law and have a stronger partner 
in their efforts.
  The increase we seek in our amendment would be offset by a cut of 
$800,000 in the agricultural building and facilities and rental 
payments account, only one-half of 1 percent, leaving over $156 
million.
  Mr. Chairman, in the 27 years since Congress first prohibited most 
interstate and foreign commerce of animals for fighting, USDA has 
pursued only a handful of cases, despite receiving a steady stream of 
tips from informants and requests for State and local police on illegal 
movement of fighting dogs and birds across State lines.
  I was pleased to have the support of so many of our colleagues last 
year in enacting provisions to the farm bill to close loopholes in the 
Federal animal fighting law. Now it is time to ensure that the USDA 
take seriously its responsibilities and has the resources to enforce 
the law.
  The amendment would provide the $800,000 for the Office of Inspector 
General to focus on animal fighting cases, working closely with State 
and local law enforcement personnel to complement their efforts.
  While dogfighting is banned in all 50 States and cockfighting is 
banned in 48 States, the Federal Government must be involved, for 
participants in animal fights often come together from several States 
at a time and animals are moved across State lines.
  This is not some innocent pastime. Dogfighting and cockfighting are 
barbaric activities in which animals are

[[Page 17859]]

given drugs to make them hyper-aggressive and drugs to clot their blood 
more quickly so they can continue fighting. They are pushed by their 
handlers to fight even after they have suffered grievous injuries, such 
as pierced lungs and gouged eyes.
  Dogfights and cockfights not only are deplorable animal abuse, but 
they are integrally involved with illegal gambling, drug traffic and 
violence to people who participate in these activities.
  It is well documented that animal fighters often bring their children 
to these spectacles, sending a terrible message to them about animal 
cruelty and violence. Some dogfighters steal pets to use as bait for 
training their dogs. Some abandon fighting animals, leaving them to 
roam neighborhoods and wreak havoc. Any dog bred and trained to fight 
poses a public safety risk.
  Mr. Chairman, in October of 2002, the Exotic Newcastle Disease began 
spreading rapidly across the Southwest United States. Exotic Newcastle 
Disease is a highly contagious viral disease that affects respiratory, 
digestive and nervous systems of all birds. This outbreak cost 
taxpayers upwards of $100 million in containment and compensation fees, 
and it is very probable the outbreak originated from cockfighting birds 
imported from Mexico.
  According to the State Veterinarian and Director of Animal Health and 
Food Services in California, game fowl and their owners have played a 
major role in the dissemination of this virus due to their high 
mobility related to meetings, training, breeding and fighting 
activities on a regular basis.
  The Texas Poultry Federation takes a similar position in its letter, 
stating that cockfighting has spread Exotic Newcastle Disease as their 
birds travel extensively and come in close contact at fights. It makes 
no sense to allow illegal cockfighting operations to continue, putting 
our flocks and livelihood at risk.
  Mr. Chairman, surely spending $800,000 to crack down on animal 
fighting is a smart investment to help prevent the spread of costly 
future diseases, especially when a significant portion of the 
eradication expenses the Federal Government has already incurred in the 
recent outbreak, $11.5 million, according to USDA records, went to 
compensate owners of birds believed to be illegal fighting cocks.

                              {time}  1300

  Why let this illegal industry continue to thrive unchecked?
  Animal fighting is no longer simply an animal welfare issue, it is an 
epidemic that is costing taxpayers millions of dollars, threatening our 
food supply, and destroying the hard work of American farmers. It 
promotes illegal gambling and drug activities and puts the public at 
risk. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this amendment.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, there is not a Member of this body that does not 
believe in treating animals humanely. However, I oppose this amendment 
for several reasons:
  First, the $800,000 that would go to the Inspector General would go 
to dogfighting and cockfighting enforcement, and it would cut buildings 
and facilities funding for rent and maintenance that are already 
underfunded.
  The Inspector General's office has told us that enforcement of this 
will be done at a minimal level since this is a misdemeanor offense. 
Now, one could argue the pluses and minuses on whether it should be a 
more serious offense, but these are misdemeanors that are dealt with by 
local law enforcement agencies from around the country, and they cannot 
afford to devote their resources at the IG level because of this 
reason. The IG tells us that one case alone could cost $800,000.
  Second, one of the reasons that we are debating this amendment today 
is that the Humane Society of the United States points out that this 
vote will be counted on the Humane Scorecard this year. The only reason 
that this item is even on their scorecard is that we have addressed all 
other of their concerns in this bill. We provided a $437,000 increase 
for animal welfare, $1.1 million more for regulatory enforcement in the 
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and fully funded the 
enforcement of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act in the Food Safety 
and Inspection Service.
  If the sponsors of this amendment were serious about this, programs 
that the HSUS supported like the ones that I just mentioned are the 
ones that would be cut to pay for this amendment, but then that would 
force them to prioritize like the rest of us have to do.
  If every Member of the House brought an amendment to the floor just 
because they did not get every last nickel that they wanted, we would 
be here all day and we could never get this bill done.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to not vote against this 
amendment simply because I am suggesting that they do, but vote against 
this amendment because of the following statement by an HSUS Vice 
President who said, ``The life of an ant and that of any child should 
be granted equal consideration.''
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Blumenauer-
Tancredo amendment. The amendment is designed to improve enforcement of 
the Animal Welfare Act.
  I think that when we recognize that so many Americans are concerned 
about animal abuse, we look at this as being one of the most egregious 
areas where dogfighting and cockfighting takes place. As the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) pointed out, it is not only a matter of 
animal abuse, it is a matter of illegal gambling, drug trafficking, and 
violence against other people. Violence breeds violence. I think that 
this amendment, in seeking to bring an appropriate Federal role through 
funding through the Inspector General, would help the local communities 
understand that a Federal focus means that more attention needs to be 
paid to local enforcement as well.
  As somebody who served in municipal government over the years, this 
is something that came up in terms of activities that were taking place 
in some of the neighborhoods in my own community, and certainly people 
who heard about them and who were involved in the community understood 
that the level of violence and the level of animal cruelty was 
something that needed public attention.
  We should have no tolerance for animal cruelty. We should have no 
tolerance for a system which degrades these creatures of God. And we 
also need to understand that, as the honorable chairman pointed out, 
the observation that was made by an official concerning the quality of 
ants and children, I do not think that he actually meant to equate the 
importance of an ant to a child, but what the statement meant to say 
was that all life here ought to be regarded with some degree of respect 
and that, in effect, when we try to come forward here and support 
animal welfare and support the rights of animals to not be treated 
cruelly, what we are doing here is, in effect, elevating our own 
humanity.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to just respond very briefly 
to two points of the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee.
  What he describes with the notion of this being a misdemeanor is part 
of the catch-22 that some of the people in this Congress who are 
fronting for the illegal fighting animal activities have produced for 
us. When we had an amendment on the floor that was approved in the farm 
bill last year, it was to increase the penalties so that it would be 
easier to pursue. But, sadly, in conference, contrary to the will of 
the House, these provisions were watered down. So now we can plead, 
well, it is only a misdemeanor so we should not be involved with it.
  The fact is, as I mentioned in my statement, 55 local jurisdictions 
and State jurisdictions in law enforcement have asked us to come 
forward, because

[[Page 17860]]

while these provisions may be misdemeanors, they are tied up in a 
network of illegal activity that breeds violence, drug, and other 
activities and is serious. It is not just animal cruelty, if somebody 
wants to dismiss that.
  Second, the gentleman's argument that we cannot afford it I think is 
a false economy. First of all, I am taking from an account that they 
have already significantly reduced. It is an area that would already 
have $156 million. We are only speaking of one-half of 1 percent, but 
the $800,000 here has the opportunity to prevent vast losses to the 
Federal Government.
  As I pointed out, Exotic Newcastle Disease and all the evidence 
suggests it is illegal game-fighting that has spread it throughout the 
Southwest. That is the conclusion from the gentleman's home State of 
Texas, from California, and has cost us upwards of $100 million that we 
have had to spend tracking these down, eradicating poultry and other 
birds and compensating people, including $11.5 million for what are 
probably illegal fighting cocks.
  I would suggest that the gentleman, with all due respect, is not 
being responsive to the overall economic impact, and it is not simply 
that we just dismiss as something not worthy of more law enforcement 
attention. It does not get the attention because the interests that are 
sympathetic to animal fighting, illegal animal fighting, have 
deliberately fought to have strong enforcement provisions. The least we 
can do, the least we can do is provide the resources within the extent 
of the existing law to cut it back, stop the illegal activity, and 
prevent the waste of tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I wanted to say 
that I think the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) has a very 
worthy amendment here. I was particularly struck by one of his 
arguments: the linkage between crime and the mistreatment of animals 
and the increasing spread of Exotic Newcastle Disease across our 
country which, by the way, also has a cost. It comes to us in the form 
of trying to remediate and to make whole those whose flocks have been 
devastated. I do not think that it is widely known that, as the 
gentleman mentioned, some of the animals might have come in from 
another country. We know how poorly our borders are inspected.
  So I want to commend the gentleman for taking the offset for his 
amendment from the buildings accounts, as opposed to from our research 
accounts or our animal plant health inspection accounts, or our border 
inspections, et cetera. I think that the matter is that the people who 
are doing this are doing it illegally; and now there is a linkage to 
the spread of disease, serious disease.
  I think that the gentleman's amendment is very reasonable. He is 
asking for $800,000 for the Office of the Inspector General who, when 
they are given the authority, do a great job, to try to remedy this 
animal fighting across our country and, I think importantly, to stem 
any disease that may spread as a result of it.
  So I just wanted to speak on behalf of the gentleman's amendment and 
to thank him for the responsible manner in which he has found an offset 
to try to find the funds for the Inspector General.
  I might say, one of the bad things about the way the laws concerning 
the Inspector General have been written, even if wrongdoers are found 
and fines are levied, under the laws of our country the Inspector 
General has to return those funds to the Department of Treasury. It 
does not go to the Department of Agriculture for further prosecution 
and further investigation. I have never liked that aspect of the law, 
because I think we ought to reward the Inspectors General that are 
doing a good job in apprehending wrongdoers across this country.
  So I want to thank the gentleman for his very appropriate amendment 
here, and I urge my colleagues for their support.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, attached is a letter signed by 122 
members requesting this $800,000 increase, as well as a letter of 
support from the Humane Society of the United States.

                                Congress of the United States,

                                     Washington, DC, May 23, 2003.
     Hon. Henry Bonilla,
     Chairman, Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rayburn 
         House Office Bldg., Washington, DC.
     Hon. Marcy Kaptur,
     Ranking Member, Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, 
         Longworth House Office Bldg., Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Bonilla and Ranking Member Kaptur: We are 
     writing to thank you for your outstanding support in FY 2003 
     for improved enforcement by the U.S. Department of 
     Agriculture of key animal welfare laws, and to urge you to 
     ``hold the line'' in FY 2004 so that this effort can be 
     sustained. Your leadership is making a great difference in 
     helping to protect the welfare of millions of animals across 
     the country, including those at commercial breeding 
     facilities, laboratories, zoos, circuses, airlines, and 
     slaughterhouses. As you know, better enforcement will also 
     benefit people by helping to prevent: (1) injuries to 
     slaughterhouse workers from animals struggling in pain; (2) 
     orchestrated dogfights and cockfights that often involve 
     illegal gambling, drug traffic, and human violence; (3) the 
     sale of unhealthy pets by commercial breeders commonly 
     referred to as ``puppy mills''; (4) laboratory conditions 
     that may impair the scientific integrity of animal based 
     research; (5) risks of disease transmission from, and 
     dangerous encounters with, wild animals in or during public 
     exhibition; and (6) injuries and death of pets on commercial 
     airline flights due to mishandling and exposure to adverse 
     environmental conditions.
       For FY 2004, we want to ensure that the important work made 
     possible by the FY 2003 budget is continued, that newly hired 
     and trained inspectors will be able to stay on the job, and 
     that resources will be used in the most effective ways 
     possible to carry out these key laws. Specific areas of 
     concern are as follows:


   office of inspector general/$800,000 increase for animal fighting 
                              enforcement

       In last year's Farm Bill, Congress enacted provisions that 
     were overwhelmingly supported in both chambers to close 
     loopholes in the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) regarding 
     cockfighting and dogfighting. Since 1976, when Congress first 
     prohibited most interstate and foreign commerce in animals 
     for fighting, USDA has pursued no cockfighting cases and only 
     three dogfighting cases, despite rampant activity across the 
     country. USDA has apparently received innumerable tips from 
     informants and requests to assist with state and local 
     prosecutors, but routinely ignored or declined such requests. 
     It is time for USDA to take seriously its responsibility to 
     enforce the portion of the AWA dealing with animal fighting 
     ventures. Dogfighting and cockfighting are barbaric 
     activities in which animals are drugged to heighten their 
     aggression and forced to keep fighting even after they've 
     suffered grievous injuries, such as pierced lungs and gouged 
     eyes. Animal fighting is almost always associated with 
     illegal gambling, and also often involves illegal drug 
     traffic and violence toward people. Dogs bred and trained to 
     fight endanger public safety. Cockfighting has been linked 
     with the recent outbreak of Exotic Newcastle Disease that has 
     already destroyed many poultry flocks and cost taxpayers more 
     than $40 million for containment and compensation, with costs 
     estimated to rise as high as $250-$500 million.
       Given the dangerous nature of animal fighting enforcement 
     work, we believe that the department's chief law enforcement 
     arm--the Office of Inspector General (OIG)--is best suited to 
     lead this effort. We therefore respectfully request an 
     increase of $800,000 for the OIG to focus on animal fighting 
     cases and inclusion of bill language directing the Secretary 
     to coordinate intelligence gathering, investigation, and 
     prosecution of animal fighting cases, pursuant to Section 26 
     of the AWA, through the OIG, working with local and state law 
     enforcement personnel to complement their efforts, and 
     drawing on other federal entities including the Attorney 
     General, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services, and 
     the Office of the General Counsel as needed.


  Food Safety and Inspection Service/Humane Methods of Slaughter Act 
                           (HMSA) Enforcement

       We greatly appreciate the inclusion of $5 million in the FY 
     2003 bill to hire at least 50 inspectors whose sole 
     responsibility will be to ensure that livestock are treated 
     humanely and rendered unconscious before they are hung upside 
     down, skinned, dismembered, scalded, or killed. Having these 
     new inspectors focus on unloading, handling, stunning, and 
     killing of animals will bring much-needed attention to 
     slaughter plant practices that have had little oversight in 
     recent years. We also appreciate your inclusion of language 
     specifying that the ongoing activities of 17 District 
     Veterinary Medical Specialists hired as a result of $1 
     million provided in the FY 2001 Supplemental should be 
     limited to HMSA enforcement rather than the various unrelated 
     duties with which they had been charged. And we commend you 
     for

[[Page 17861]]

     directing the General Accounting Office to review and report 
     by July 1, 2003 on the scope and frequently of HMSA 
     violations, with ``recommendations on the extent to which 
     additional resources for inspection personnel, training, and 
     other agency functions are needed to properly regulate 
     slaughter facilities in the areas of HMSA enforcement.''
       There are nearly 900 federally inspected slaughter plants 
     in the U.S., handling millions of animals each day. In 
     addition to requesting continued funds in FY 2004 to sustain 
     at least 50 new inspectors and the 17 positions mentioned 
     above, we hope you will give full consideration to any 
     recommendations the GAO may have for enhancing enforcement of 
     this important--and very basic--law.


                    APHIS/Animal Welfare Enforcement

       Thanks to funding increases in the past four years, 
     Congress has enabled USDA to begin to reverse a serious 
     decline in the number of AWA compliance inspections. However, 
     the President's FY 2004 budget proposal--which suggests $1.7 
     million less for the Animal Care division than in FY 2003--
     would fail to cover the salaries of recently-hired inspectors 
     and substantially undo the gains Congress has made possible. 
     Moreover, there is still much room for improvement. Many 
     facilities continue to escape oversight for long periods of 
     time, giving rise to situations that threaten both human and 
     animal health and safety. Nearly half of the sites that do 
     get inspected are found to have apparent violations of the 
     minimum standards under the Act and, therefore, follow-up 
     visits are badly needed. We urge you to sustain Animal 
     Welfare funding at the FY 2003 appropriated level of $16.4 
     million, in order to keep the current number of inspectors 
     (approximately 100 to oversee about 10,000 sites).
       Again, we are very grateful for the Subcommittee's 
     leadership in addressing enforcement needs for key animal 
     welfare laws. We hope you will stay the course, so that funds 
     necessary to administer these laws effectively will continue 
     to be available and will be appropriately used. We look 
     forward to working with you in the coming year, and thank you 
     for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
         Christopher Smith, Earl Blumenauer, Thomas Tancredo, 
           Robert Andrews, Mark Green, Elton Gallegly, Roscoe 
           Bartlett, Gary Ackerman, David Wu, William Delahunt, 
           James Moran, Louise Slaughter, Steven LaTourette, Frank 
           LoBiondo, Dennis Kucinich, David Price, James McGovern, 
           Steve Israel, Tammy Baldwin, Bob Filner, Barney Frank, 
           Tim Ryan, Rush Holt, Rick Larsen, Jerry Costello, Jim 
           Leach, Steven Rothman, Nancy Johnson, James Langevin, 
           Michael Ferguson, Gary Ackerman, George Miller, Carolyn 
           Maloney, Mark Udall, Vic Snyder, Jim Saxton, Rob 
           Simmons, Anthony Weiner, Donald Payne, Johnny Isakson, 
           Richard Neal, Frank Wolf,
         Neil Abercrombie, Dennis Moore, Bill Pascrell, Jr., Ellen 
           Tauscher, Judy Biggert, Luis Gutierrez, Michael Doyle, 
           Karen McCarthy, Jerrold Nadler, Janice Schakowsky, 
           Robert Wexler, Phil English, Mike Thompson, Peter 
           DeFazio, Dale Kildee, Sherrod Brown, Frank Pallone, 
           Elijah Cummings, Zoe Lofgren, Robert Menendez, Jay 
           Inslee, Joseph Hoeffel III, Michael Bilirakis, Bernard 
           Sanders, Chris Shays, Henry Waxman, Brad Sherman, 
           Charles Rangel, Fred Upton, Tom Lantos, Hilda Solis, 
           John Tierney, Peter Deutsch, Edward Whitfield, Lloyd 
           Doggett, Edolphus Towns, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Barbara 
           Lee, Major Owens, Adam Smith, Eliot Engel, Michael 
           Honda, Lane Evans, Julia Carson, Corrine Brown, William 
           Clay, Jr., Brian Baird, Adam Schiff, Grace Napolitano, 
           Robert Matsui, Albert Wynn, Anthony Weiner, Martin 
           Meehan, Nicholas Lampson, Thomas Allen, Nancy Pelosi, 
           Patrick Kennedy, Sherwood Boehlert, Anna Eshoo, Sander 
           Levin, Shelby Berkley, James Clyburn, Howard Berman, 
           Jim McDermott, Nydia Velazquez, Gene Green, John Lewis, 
           Lynn Woolsey, Sanford Bishop, Jr., Charles Gonzalez, 
           Michael Capuano, Benjamin Cardin, Ed Case, Harold Ford, 
           Jr., Pete Stark, Stephen Lynch, William Lipinski, 
           Charles Bass, Clay Shaw, Jr., Jim Greenwood.
                                  ____

                                                The Humane Society


                                         of the United States,

                                    Washington, DC, July 14, 2003.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of The Humane Society of the 
     United States (HSUS) and our more than 7.7 million supporters 
     nationwide, we are writing to urge your support for the 
     Blumenauer-Tancredo amendment to the Fiscal Year 2004 
     Agriculture Appropriation Act. The HSUS intends to score this 
     vote on our annual Humane Scorecard,which is a joint project 
     of several major national animal protection organizations.
       Last year, Congress closed loopholes in the federal animal 
     fighting law (Section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act). Now 
     Congress needs to ensure that USDA enforces this law in a 
     meaningful way. The Blumenauer-Tancredo amendment would 
     provide $800,000 for the Office of Inspector General to focus 
     on animal fighting cases, providing for collaborative 
     opportunities for federal, state, and local law enforcement 
     personnel on dogfighting and cockfighting activities that 
     involve interstate transport or foreign commerce.
       Dogfighting and cockfighting are barbaric activities in 
     which animals are drugged to heighten their aggression, 
     strapped with knives or gaffs on their legs, placed in a pit, 
     and forced to fight to injury or death for amusement. During 
     the instigated fights, the animals suffer grievous wounds. 
     Animal fighting is often associated with illegal gambling, 
     and also often involves illegal drug traffic and violence 
     against people. Dogs bred and trained to fight endanger 
     public safety.
       Cockfighting has been linked with the recent outbreak of 
     Exotic Newcastle Disease (END) that destroyed many poultry 
     flocks and cost taxpayers more than $100 million for 
     containment and compensation. Not only have law enforcement 
     agencies and humane and veterinary groups called on Congress 
     and USDA to deal with this growing problem, so have 
     traditional agricultural organizations like the California 
     Farm Bureau Federation and the Texas Poultry Federation, out 
     of concern about cockfighters spreading END and other 
     diseases.
       Thank you for your consideration, and please vote ``yes'' 
     on the Blumenauer-Tancredo amendment to the FY 04 Agriculture 
     Appropriations Act.
           Sincerely,
     Wayne Pacelle,
       Senior Vice President, Communications & Government Affairs.
     Mimi Brody,
       Director, Federal Legislation.

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, last year, Congress enacted provisions to 
close loopholes in the federal animal fighting laws. We need to ensure 
the Department of Agriculture (USDA) has the resources it needs to 
enforce the law.
  The Blumenauer-Tancredo amendment will provide a modest $800,000 for 
the USDA's Office of Inspector General to focus on animal fighting 
cases.
  Dogfighting is banned in all 50 States and cockfighting is banned in 
48 States. Dogfights and cockfights frequently involve not only 
deplorable animal abuse, but also illegal gambling, drug traffic, and 
violence to people. Additionally, cockfighting may be responsible for 
the spreading of diseases such as Exotic Newcastle Disease (END), a 
highly contagious virus that affects the respiratory, digestive, and 
nervous systems of birds. This disease has destroyed many poultry 
flocks throughout California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas and has 
cost taxpayers more than $100 million for containment and compensation.
  As Co-Chair of the Congressional Friends of Animals Caucus, I urge my 
colleagues to vote in favor of the Blumenauer-Tancredo amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. 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 Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) 
will be postponed.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Davis of Alabama

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Davis of Alabama:
       Page 3, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $3,500,000)''.
       Page 11, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 13, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 13, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,500,000)''.
       Page 14, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,500,000)''.

  Mr. DAVIS of Alabama (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 
Alabama?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support and to 
offer an amendment that will correct a discrepancy and a disparity that 
has been overlooked in this bill, Mr. Chairman.
  Let me begin by, first of all, thanking the very able ranking member 
of this subcommittee, the gentlewoman

[[Page 17862]]

from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for her cooperation and her assistance. Let me 
thank my good friend, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), 
as well and a number of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who 
have worked on this issue during the last several months.
  Mr. Chairman, 17 Members of this institution are honored to represent 
1890 Land Grant Colleges. 1890 Land Grant Colleges are historically 
black colleges and universities that have played an enormously 
significant role in the life of the South, in particular in the last 
100 years. These institutions, that include in my State Tuskegee 
Alabama University and Alabama A&M University, not only reach an 
underserved part of the population, but they have been vehicles for 
launching leadership all over this country.
  In the President's budget that was submitted, there was a discrepancy 
in the way these schools are treated and the way that 1862 Land Grant 
Colleges are treated. While I certainly take the chairman's admonition 
that if all of us who wanted to add a dollar here and a dollar there 
were to come to the floor, we would be here all day, I think that all 
of us would recognize that we have some fundamental obligations to 
treat like institutions in the same manner.
  This particular budget essentially leaves level funding for 1862 Land 
Grants, which happen to be predominantly white institutions. Funding is 
slashed by five times that amount for 1890 Land Grants. I am not here 
to point a finger, Mr. Chairman, or to cast aspersions. I simply 
identify this discrepancy as something that we should fix.
  A number of people ask, what is the impact of a cut that seems 
relatively small, about 3 percent? That has to be measured I think in 
the individual life of these institutions. Seventeen of them stand to 
lose $200,000 to $300,000 a school. In Tuskegee, Alabama, a $200,000 
cut at Tuskegee University weakens the ability of that school to do 
enormously important work. A $200,000 cut at Alabama A&M University 
weakens the ability of that school to do enormously important work.
  While so many programs have had to bear the brunt of the budget ax, 
we ought to make sure that it is administered in a fair and evenhanded 
manner.
  So I ask my colleagues to support this amendment and to restore $3.5 
million, a fraction of a $3 trillion plus budget, to bring back these 
1890s to parallel treatment with 1862s in this budget. This is an act 
of bipartisanship on our part.
  I want to thank someone who is not here today, who is touring a base 
in his State, my good friend and one of the ablest colleagues that we 
have in this institution, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays). 
He has worked on this issue since the budget process. I want to also 
thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), our colleague on the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, to make a very 
important statement about the worth and the value of these colleges 
that play such a significant role.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. 
Chairman, once again the gentleman brings up some very good points in 
his amendment, but we have done the best we possibly could under the 
limitations we have this year; and the offset the gentleman is looking 
at, again, would hurt the implementation of a lot of programs that we 
have discussed earlier. So for that reason I would oppose this 
amendment.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to rise in very strong support of the 
gentleman from Alabama's (Mr. Davis) amendment. I think it is a very 
important one to support our land grant institutions, and those that 
are historically black colleges and Tuskegee Institute. If you think 
about it, if you look at the budget the President presented to the 
Congress, the funding for the 1890 land grant institutions was actually 
cut three times as deeply as funding for the 1862 land grant 
institutions under the President's submittal. And so the cuts fall more 
harshly on those institutions that have an enormous load to carry in 
helping to bring up the talent to perform the research at those 
colleges which often gets shortchanged because people are spending so 
much of their time teaching.
  I think only an administration that really does not understand what 
these institutions do could cut the funding three times as deeply as 
the other trims that were made in the budget. It has been very 
interesting to watch the President tour Africa. In having worked with 
our colleagues over the years to try to get linkages between our 
historically black colleges and Tuskegee Institute with African 
institutions to try to draw linkages halfway across the world, I know 
how difficult it has been. It has been hard to get those kinds of 
agreements to occur, to give these institutions a chance to embrace the 
21st century and create the kind of global connections and specialized 
knowledge that rests in these institutions.
  So I think the gentleman makes a very reasonable proposal here for 
$1.5 million to be directed to the institutions for facilities and $2 
million for capacity building for the 1890s institutions, offsetting 
that $3.5 million from the common computing environment.
  When I look at what happened over the weekend with all the news 
coming out about credit cards over at the Department of Agriculture and 
some of the internal problems that they are having, I know one thing: 
when you invest in the Historically Black Colleges and Universities and 
the Tuskegee Institute, you are investing in people; you are investing 
in the future where knowledge is so important to propel economic growth 
including in some of the most hollowed out parts of the country where 
agriculture has to be the lodestar industry. These institutions provide 
hope and opportunity for people who were traditionally excluded from 
other institutions of learning in this country.
  So I think that the gentleman has correctly awakened this Congress 
and the administration to what is not just fair but appropriate and 
will help to provide opportunity in many quarters. So I want to 
strongly support the Davis amendment.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the gentleman 
from Alabama's amendment.
  As a graduate of one of our nation's historically Black land-grant 
institutions, North Carolina A&T State University, I know how important 
these colleges and universities are to farmers in economically-
distressed areas. To reduce the research and education activities by 17 
percent and the expansion for extension activities by 10 percent 
imposes an onerous burden on these institutions and their ability to 
serve minority students and farmers. These cuts stand in marked 
contrast to the minimal reductions experienced by 1862 land-grant 
institutions.
  Consequently, I would urge support for the gentleman's amendment 
which would restore $3.5 million for these colleges and universities. 
At a time when limited resource farmers are struggling for survival, we 
should not be undercutting their best educational resource, the 
extension arm of the 1890 colleges and universities.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, which 
will restore funding to historically black 1890 land grant colleges, 
and thank Artur Davis for bringing this disparity to our attention.
  When the Budget Committee, of which I am Vice-Chairman, debated this 
year's Budget Resolution, Mr. Davis alerted us to a troubling 
discrepancy. Under the budget, historically black 1890 Colleges of 
Agriculture would have federal funds cut by 3.1 percent, while 
predominantly non-minority 1862 land grant colleges were only cut by .6 
percent. The Budget Committee agreed to insert language into the Budget 
Resolution stating 1862 and 1890 colleges should be treated equitably.
  Under the budget, Capacity Building grants for research and education 
activities at 1890 colleges were cut 17 percent, while Facilities 
Expansion funding for Extension Activities were cut by 10 percent. Our 
amendment restores this funding.
  There are 1,890 extension offices working directly with minority 
farmers. Their activities are vital to the success of these primarily 
agricultural institutions, and provide critical support

[[Page 17863]]

for farmers in the most economically-distressed areas.
  Because so little funding already flows to these activities, cuts of 
this magnitude could cripple the ability of 1890 institutions to pursue 
their mission.
  Again, I thank Mr. Davis for offering this amendment and urge its 
passage.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Rehberg

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Rehberg:
       Strike section 743 (page 71, lines 8 through 11), relating 
     to country of origin labeling for meat and meat products.

  Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment, that is why I had it 
read. It is country-of-origin labeling.
  A vote for this amendment is a vote in favor of country-of-origin 
labeling. A vote against this amendment is a vote to kill it. The 
proponents of what they did in the subcommittee and full committee will 
talk about the fact that they are delaying for 1 year, but that does 
not occur. Within this amendment, by delaying the implementation, you 
in fact delay country-of-origin labeling because the Department will 
spend no time on this very matter. We knew all along the administration 
did not support this. I have talked to the President personally about 
this. I do not know if they necessarily understand the issue.
  The issue is very simple. Do we want to give our producers in America 
the opportunity to tout the fact that their product was born, raised, 
and processed in America? Country-of-origin labeling offers shoppers a 
choice, but also provides farmers and ranchers fairness. The issue has 
been fully debated. It was debated in the House farm bill. It was 
debated in the Senate farm bill. It passed both bodies. It was signed 
by the President; and, in fact, the administration has had twelve 
hearings around the country.
  By taking the funding away from the implementation, you are cutting 
the legs out from under American farmers and ranchers and our ability 
to know where our product comes from, and it makes you wonder why 
somebody would be reluctant to put their name or their country on their 
product. Currently you can buy clothes, you can buy electronics, you 
can buy toys that label where they come from; but you cannot label meat 
mandatorily. You do not know where your meat is necessarily coming 
from. And yet you can buy Australian lamb chops, New Zealand apples, 
and Chilean sea bass.
  Some will try to say that COOL violates the international trade 
agreements. And that is not true. In fact, in an article just today, 
the Japanese officials have said that trade would be banned beginning 
September 1 if the United States cannot certify that exports contained 
no Canadian beef. Our number one importer of our beef is Japan. They 
want country-of-origin labeling. Our number three importer of our meat 
is Korea, and they want the same labeling. In fact, 60 countries around 
the world are asking for labeling.
  I have brought along an article that was in the Great Falls paper 
yesterday, the Great Falls Tribune. Interesting: ``This spring after a 
case of mad cow disease was confirmed in Alberta, Montana's cattle 
industry found out just how valuable it is to know where cattle are all 
the time. In June, officials learned five bulls from a Canadian herd 
linked to the Alberta cow with the disease were sold to a Montana ranch 
in 1997. The paper trails created by the State's inspection process 
traced in less than 20 hours where the bulls had been and where they 
ended up. Montana's brand inspection laws are among the country's 
strictest. Every time branded livestock are moved across a county line, 
sold to another owner or brought to a livestock auction, an official 
inspection must take place; records of those inspections are kept in a 
State wide registry. Jack Wiseman, administrator of brand enforcement 
of the Montana Department of Livestock said, `If a cow never left the 
State of Montana or was exported to State with a similar brand laws, we 
could trace the ownership of a cow from calf-hood to death.'''
  Do not listen to me as to why this is important. Listen to somebody 
who has some experience in enforcement of livestock laws. ```Montana's 
system is enviable,' says Larry Gray, the director of Law Enforcement 
for Texas and the Southwest Cattle Raisers. The Lone Star State does 
not require brand inspections for stock sales between private 
individuals. Brands are recorded at the county level but there is no 
state-wide registry. I wish our laws were more stringent. That is a 
problem in Texas, he said, and right there there is not a way for State 
officials to trace an individual animal's history. `Perhaps with 
country-of-origin labeling which would show consumers where meat sold 
at the retail level is born, raised, and processed, there will be a way 
to trace cattle here.'''
  Does that not scare you to death? Cattle can be stolen in some States 
around this country and we have do not have the process set up to be 
able to tell, like Montana did within 20 hours, where cattle that had 
come from a State or a country that had a problem, where those 
livestock went. It is important that we pass this amendment. It is 
important that we carry forward with country-of-origin labeling for 
America, for farmers and ranchers, for consumers.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, there is strong bipartisan opposition to this amendment 
in this body. It is interesting to note on this occasion when 
amendments are presented before this body how much misinformation is 
presented. For the proponents of this amendment to in any way indicate 
that you cannot put labels on any meat products at this time is absurd. 
This is a free country.
  Any producer, any retailer right now can stick a label that says 
``Made in America'' on any aisle in any frozen food section, in any 
section of the grocery store if they choose to do that.
  The misinformation about whether or not this amendment affects mad 
cow disease is one of those fear-mongering arguments that is often 
times made in this town and around the country when you are trying to 
reach people at the emotional level and not at all talking about the 
truth in substance about the issue at hand.
  This country-of-origin labeling on meat products that is in the bill, 
the prohibition on funding, has absolutely nothing to do with mad cow 
disease. But again, this argument is being pulled off the shelf to try 
to scare people into voting for this.
  This prohibition that we have put in this bill simply says that USDA 
will not be able to work on enforcing, promulgating, developing any 
kind of regulation for a year until there can be more ample study and 
understanding of the bill.
  This country-of-origin labeling provision that was put in the farm 
bill last year is controversial and costly. Many of our producers out 
there are shaking in their boots right now wondering about the 
liability that they would be faced with, the action that could be taken 
against them by people who would simply hold them accountable for not 
putting the proper label on their product. It could drive them out of 
business.
  Grocery stores in this country, I do not care what part of the 
country you live in, if you have got a Safeway, if you have got a, like 
in Texas, an HEB Food Store or an Albertson's, all of the people who 
run those grocery stores are opposed to this amendment because they 
have a tremendous liability laying before them if that product is not 
labeled appropriately.
  So if you are interested, any Member who votes for this amendment 
that is being presented by my colleague today would in essence would be 
voting to increase the grocery bill and create sticker shock the next 
time Americans go through the meat section in a grocery store. So that 
is what you would have to face if you vote for this amendment.
  The cost of this implementation of country-of-origin labeling has 
been estimated on the low end so far by those who have been working on 
this at USDA to be $2 billion. Overall most

[[Page 17864]]

people agree that that is a very conservative cost estimate; and, in 
fact, the cost of implementing this would be much, much higher and 
guess who is going to pay for that, Mr. Chairman? That is why we are 
completely opposed to this amendment.
  This has bipartisan support to be opposed to this amendment. The 
chairman of the authorizing committee, the ranking member, so many 
others that are part of the Hispanic Caucus, the Black Caucus, all 
across the board, again, members of the authorizing committee are also 
opposed to this. And they are working on this issue, having hearings, 
trying to deal with this country-of-origin labeling in the appropriate 
way. We are just asking with the provision in our bill to give them the 
time to do that.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, our previous speaker talked about bipartisan effort to 
not pass this amendment. Let me state that last year there was a 
bipartisan effort to get this amendment in the bill, and it passed both 
the House and the Senate. It is also interesting when the gentleman 
says, well, you can just slap that sticker on a piece of meat or 
whatever. Well, guess what, we require that we know where our clothing 
is made, where our shoes are made. I think consumers need to know the 
meat, the produce they put in their mouths, where it comes from, where 
it is raised, and if it is safe.
  I agree with the statements made by my colleague from Montana and 
thank him for the leadership on this issue. Over the past several days 
I received letters of support from the Oregon Farm Bureau and the 
Oregon Cattlemen's Association thanking me for helping to bring this 
amendment forward today.
  Our amendment is supported by farmers in my district and across the 
country, which is why it is endorsed by the American Farm Bureau and 
the Farmers Union. Consumers Federation supports this as well as other 
consumer groups. Our farmers grow the best produce and raise the best 
livestock in the world, and American consumers know this. Studies have 
shown that Americans want to buy American commodities and are even 
willing to pay a premium to do so.

                              {time}  1330

  Yet while a consumer could go into a department store and know that 
their shirt is made in this country, they cannot go into the grocery 
store and have the same certainty about the food they are going to 
serve their families.
  U.S. producers need mandatory labeling in order to compete in the 
marketplace. Product differentiation is the only way consumers can 
exercise their choice between purchasing either domestic beef or beef 
produced by foreign competitors.
  In fact, according to a 2003 Colorado State University survey, 69 
percent of consumers participating were willing to pay for more steaks 
clearly labeled ``USA Guaranteed: Born and Raised in the United 
States'' than for those without origin labels. Our Nation's farmers and 
ranchers produce the best and safest commodities in the world, and our 
Nation's consumers deserve the chance to determine where their food is 
born, raised and processed.
  Recent events have also shown that the country of origin labeling is 
necessary for U.S. farmers to compete in international markets, and we 
keep talking about trade in international markets. Our number one beef 
importers, Japan and Korea, have both demanded assurances that beef 
they are buying is actually American beef.
  For these reasons, we had country of origin labeling provisions added 
to the farm bill last Congress. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is 
formulating the rules to implement these provisions right now.
  What the provision in the Agriculture appropriation bill would do 
would be to prevent the USDA from putting these rules together, short-
circuiting a process that is currently in place, a process that Members 
of this body and the Senate voted to have in there last time.
  Opponents of this amendment contend that the costs for industry, 
including retailers, to comply with country of origin labeling are too 
great, and the price of products will rise as a result. This is simply 
untrue. We already have a test case in place.
  The fourth most populous State in this country, Florida, has had a 
country of origin labeling requirement for over 20 years. The Florida 
Department of Agriculture has estimated the annual cost of its 
mandatory produce labeling law is just a couple of pennies for a bag of 
groceries.
  Country of origin labeling is good for American farmers, good for 
American consumers. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to stand up today for their constituents and vote for the 
Rehberg-Hooley amendment.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I rise in support of this amendment. I think the American consumers 
have a right to know where the food they are consuming comes from and 
where it is made. I mean, think about this. Any of us here could look 
at the labels on our own clothes and know where the country of origin 
is. Why should we not be able to have that right when it comes to the 
food we consume?
  This is not only a matter of right to know. It is a matter of 
assuring that American agriculture will be able to have the full impact 
and benefit from the American market because American consumers prefer 
American agriculture. We have got to make sure that American 
agriculture has the support that it needs.
  Indeed, we are talking here about an agriculture bill. This idea of 
right-to-know and protection of the market are only some of the reasons 
why so many consumer groups and so many farmer groups across this 
country promote this country of origin labeling amendment.
  I want to cite the following in the time that I have remaining as 
groups that are supportive of this legislation so there can be no 
mistake about it, notwithstanding the remarks that have been made here 
that there is plenty of support for country of origin labeling across 
the country: The Alabama Farmers Federation, the American Agriculture 
Movement, Incorporated, the American Agriculture Movement of Arkansas, 
the American Agriculture Movement of Oklahoma, the American Corn 
Growers Association, the American Corn Growers Association of Nebraska, 
the American Meat Goat Association, the Arkansas Farmers Union, the 
Baker County Livestock Association, the Beartooth Stock Association, 
the Bitter Root Stockgrowers Association, the Bull Mountain Land 
Alliance, the Burleigh County Farm Bureau, the Calaveras County 
Cattlemen's Association, the California Farmers Union, the California 
National Farmers Organization, the Campaign to Reclaim Rural America, 
the Carbon County Stockgrowers Association all support country of 
origin labeling.
  The C.A.S.A. del Llano, the Catfish Farmers of America, the Center 
for Rural Affairs, the Cochise-Graham Cattle Growers Association, the 
Consumer Federation of America all support country of origin labeling.
  Crazy Mountain Stockgrowers Association, Dakota Resource Council, 
Dakota Rural Action, Dawson Resource Council, Dunlap Livestock Auction, 
Eagle County Cattlemen's Association, Eastern Montana Angus 
Association, Fall River and Big Valley Cattlemen's Association, 
Fillmore County Cattlemen's Association, Florida Farm Bureau 
Federation, Florida Farmers, Incorporated, Florida Fruit and Vegetables 
Association, Florida Tomato Exchange, Georgia Peanut Commission, 
Georgia Poultry Justice, Glacial Ridge Cattlemen's Association all 
support country of origin labeling.
  The Grant County Cattlemen's Association, Grant County Stockgrowers 
Association, Holy Cross Cattlemen's Association, Houston Company 
Cattlemen's Association, the Idaho Farmers Union, the Illinois Farmers 
Union all support country of origin labeling.
  The Independent Cattlemen's Association of Texas, the Indiana Farmers 
Union, the Indiana National Farmers Organization, the Institute for 
Agriculture and Trade Policy, the Iowa Farmers Union all support 
country of origin labeling.

[[Page 17865]]

  Just Food, Kansas Cattlemen's Association, Kansas Farmers Union, 
Kansas Hereford Association, Kemper County Farm Bureau, Kern County 
Cattlemen's Association, Kit Carson County Cattlemen's Association, 
Land Stewardship Project, the Lincoln County Stockmans Association all 
support country of origin labeling.
  The Livestock Marketing Association, the Madera County Cattlemen's 
Association, the Malheur County Cattlemen's Association, the McCone 
Agricultural Protection Organization, the Merced-Mariposa Cattlemen's 
Association, the Michigan Farmers Union, the Minnesota Farmers Union, 
the Missouri Farmers Union all support country of origin labeling.
  The Missouri National Farmers Organization, the Missouri Rural Crisis 
Center, the Missouri Stockgrowers Association, the Modoc County 
Cattlemen's Association, the Montana Agri-Women, the Montana 
Cattlemen's Association, the Montana Farmers Union all support country 
of origin labeling.
  The Montana National Farmers Organization, the Montana Stockgrowers' 
Association, the National Association of Farmer Elected Committees, the 
National Catholic Rural Life Conference, the National Consumers League 
all support country of origin labeling, and there is dozens and dozens 
more.
  Support this amendment.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 50 minutes and 
that the time be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) like to 
control the time?
  Mr. BONILLA. The Chairman is correct.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) will control 25 
minutes in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I request to control the time for the 
proponent.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg) will control 
25 minutes.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the distinguished chairman of the authorizing 
Committee on Agriculture.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies for 
yielding me this time and for his leadership in making sure that we 
address the country of origin labeling issue correctly.
  Many of my colleagues may not appreciate how hard the House Committee 
on Agriculture has worked on the country of origin labeling issue. 
Several years ago, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), then 
Subcommittee on Livestock and Horticulture chairman, and some of his 
colleagues began a process to explore this subject. They started out 
with the hope that it could be accomplished in a way to provide an 
effective tool for producers to earn more in the marketplace. The 
subcommittee proceeded to meet with interested parties and the 
administration to develop the idea.
  Subsequently, the fiscal year 1999 Agriculture appropriations 
directed the Secretary to conduct a comprehensive study on the 
potential effects of the idea. During an April 28, 1999, Subcommittee 
on Livestock and Horticulture hearing, the Clinton administration 
testified about the ``variety of regulatory regimes'' for labeling that 
could be adopted and further asserted that they ``believe there would 
probably have to be some kind of paperwork traceback system.'' The GAO 
pointed out that ``there is going to be significant costs associated 
with compliance and enforcement.''
  Concerned that the costs outweighed the benefits for producers, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and others turned their attention 
to working with USDA to develop a credible voluntary program that 
allowed producers and processors to work together. Meanwhile, the GAO 
released its report in January of 2000 stating that mandatory labeling 
``would necessitate change in the meat industry's current practices, 
create compliance costs across all sectors of the industry'' and 
asserting that ``U.S. packers, processors and grocers would, to the 
extent possible, pass their compliance costs back to suppliers, U.S. 
cattle and sheep ranchers, in the form of lower prices or forward to 
consumers in the form of higher retail prices.''
  On September 8, 2000, interested parties submitted a petition to the 
USDA for a voluntary program and the Subcommittee on Livestock and 
Horticulture conducted another hearing on September 26, 2000, to review 
studies and the USDA's progress on the petition.
  In early July, 2001, Under Secretary Hawks wrote industry to commit 
the Agriculture Marketing Service ``to begin action on the petition 
requesting a USDA voluntary, user-fee funded certification program that 
will enable a label for beef products.''
  That same month, on July 26 and 27, the House Committee on 
Agriculture conducted its markup of the Farm Bill. The transcript of 
that markup has 12,463 lines of text, with 3,167 lines on amendments to 
create a mandatory country of origin labeling program. Fully 25 percent 
of the markup was devoted to this proposal, which was ultimately 
rejected because of concerns that the costs outweighed the benefits.
  It has been mentioned by some that this has been passed on the floor 
of the House, and that is most certainly not correct. Mr. Chairman, an 
amendment was passed on the floor dealing with fruits and vegetables. 
The more complicated issue of beef and pork, which is the only subject 
covered by the provision in the Agriculture appropriations bill that 
delays implementation for a year, is the beef and pork provisions. The 
House has never taken a position on this, and this is far more 
complicated and costly for the producers than any of the other sectors, 
whether one likes the other ideas or not.
  For those that attended the Farm Bill conference meetings, they know 
that labeling was a major topic of discussion there as well.
  Despite a complete lack of any hearing record on the subject, the 
Senate insisted on its provision requiring labeling for beef, pork, 
lamb, fruits, vegetables, peanuts and fish.
  Just weeks ago, on June 26, the Committee on Agriculture conducted an 
extensive hearing on the implementation of mandatory country of origin 
labeling. We learned a number of troubling things. We learned that most 
of the problems associated with implementation were a result of the law 
and not the administration's interpretation. We learned that while some 
groups still support mandatory country of origin labeling, the two 
largest livestock producer groups in America, the National Cattlemen's 
Beef Association and the National Pork Producers Council, both oppose 
it.
  We learned that this new law will open everyone up and down the food 
production system to third party lawsuits with the potential of 
creating havoc for producers, packers, processors and retailers. We 
learned that because of the way the law is drafted, no matter what the 
administration does in writing the implementing regulations, because 
the retailers have been made ultimately liable for this labeling 
system, that they will set up their own regime to protect themselves 
against mislabeled products, and that regime is going to be very costly 
to producers.

                              {time}  1345

  If you are a domestic producer of beef or pork, you are going to have 
to comply with an enormous amount of record keeping, a great deal of 
cost which you are going to have to bear yourself. Lower prices for 
your product are going to be passed down to you by the processors, by 
the distributors, by the wholesalers, by the retailers; and that 
foreign competition, whether it is fine Argentinian Black Angus beef or 
Australian beef, they are simply going to slap it on the label and say 
we are guilty. It will cost them little, if anything, to comply; it 
will cost the U.S. producers more. Therefore, this is

[[Page 17866]]

going to be a major competitive disadvantage for American agriculture. 
I would urge Members to support the original Bonilla language in the 
appropriations bill to delay implementation for 1 year and oppose the 
amendment which has just been offered to strike that language. We need 
time to sort out the problems with this legislation before Congress 
ends up doing a lot more harm than good.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Rehberg-
Hooley amendment to say that the Committee bill provision indeed 
subverts the law. This Rehberg-Hooley provision was included in the 
farm bill. But when the opponents of that law found an opening in the 
subcommittee of agriculture appropriations to try to subvert the law, 
they took that opportunity. And so what we are talking about here is 
changing the law of our country that was passed here, as well as passed 
in the other body, and signed into law. We surely had plenty of 
consideration. That is number one.
  My second point is this amendment is being offered at a time when we 
have the highest number of meat recalls in the country's history. God 
forbid you are the parent of someone who just died from eating 
contaminated meat. I find it very interesting that those who oppose 
this say there are going to be all these high costs and all these 
problems. Do Members know that not one producer in Ohio has complained 
to me about this law? I represent cattlemen and cattlewomen. They raise 
a lot of different kinds of animals in our region. Producers want the 
labeling. In fact, the Ohio producers, the Great Lakes producers, are 
working on their own electronic ear tags because they do not want their 
meat mixed with other stuff that they do not know where it comes from. 
They want to be able to offer a quality product at a competitive price 
and get it on the shelves of the supermarket. The problem is that the 
supermarkets deny shelf space to independent producers.
  We know who wants this law subverted. It is not the ranchers; it is 
not the farmers. It is the people who want to make money off them. Any 
decent business person wants labeling of their product. Our father 
operated a family grocery and when he made his meatloafs, when he made 
his sausages, we had our own label tape that we pealed and put right on 
the package. We were so proud of his products. Our market was called 
Supreme Market, and to this day it sold the best meat I ever ate, the 
best sausage I ever ate. We were proud to label it. Good producers want 
labels on their quality products.
  In Ohio, the Great Lakes Family Farms has a special verification 
program. They eartag animals with all relevant information. They know 
what shots the animal got. They know which feed lot it was on and how 
much it weighed at 6 months, at 8 months. They know everything because 
they know their customers want to know, and that local label gives them 
a niche in the market to be able to offer quality meat.
  Mr. Chairman, in an era when the consumer wants to know, why is the 
Republican leadership trying to subvert the law and not give us as 
consumers the right to know where our meat comes from? It is simply 
because if you are going to mix in Argentinian beef or mix in some 
other kind of meat at the store, you do not want your customers to 
know. If you have some Uruguayan skinny steer that was wandering 
somewhere around Latin America, and then you are going to take some of 
that meat and blend it in with Ohio beef, you do not want anybody to 
know because you are going to make just as much money on that package.
  But the farmers know how to label. They are doing it already. They 
are doing it in our region, and those electronic ear tags are so 
complete and with technology being what it is today, we can know 
everything about an animal, even who its mother and father were.
  Do not give me this baloney it is going to be so much more expensive. 
Our farmers are already doing it. Ohio farmers can lead the way. In 
fact, the American Farm Bureau supports the law. It does not support 
subverting the law. They support country-of-origin labeling. In the 
letter that they have sent to us, they say those products should be 
labeled at the retail level. With increased trade, more products are 
being imported into the United States and the farm bureau is working 
with the agricultural marketing services to implement a program with 
the least amount of burden and cost to producers.
  So in addition to all of the names that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich) read into the Record, I will include a letter from the 
American Farm Bureau.
  Mr. Chairman, Members might have noticed the recent stories about mad 
cow disease, BSE, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, that is up in 
Canada now. We have to know where our meat comes from, and people who 
raise meat should be responsible for it, just like my father was 
responsible for his products. They ought to be proud of what they are 
producing and not ashamed, and not try to hide something on a package 
that when you take the hamburger out, it looks red on the outside and 
it is all brown on the inside. We all know what they are doing. We 
understand what that is all about.
  I think it is a worthy amendment. We have the technology to do it. I 
will place in the Record what the 4-H requires of our students as one 
of its projects to have labeling of beef. This is not rocket science. 
It can be done.

                              American Farm Bureau Federation,

                                    Washington, DC, June 24, 2003.
     Hon. Marcy Kaptur,
     House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Kaptur: The American Farm Bureau 
     Federation commends the Appropriations Committee for timely 
     action on the FY04 agriculture spending bill. We ask that you 
     consider the following information as the Appropriations 
     Committee acts on the bill this week.
       We support full funding for the Farm Security and Rural 
     Investment Act of 2002 (FSRIA). Unfavorable weather 
     conditions, uncertainties involved with international trade, 
     the value of the dollar and record high input costs have 
     converged to produce a turbulent and difficult time for 
     agriculture. The industry has suffered through several 
     consecutive years of historic low market prices and weather 
     disasters. The new farm law helps address problems faced by 
     American farmers and ranchers and it provides unprecedented 
     funds for our nation's conservation needs. Changes in farm 
     bill programs would be devastating not only to farmers and 
     ranchers but the rural economy as well. Consequently, the 
     Farm Bureau strongly encourages you to avoid making changes 
     to FSRIA in the FY04 appropriations process.
       We commend the Committee for maintaining full funding of 
     farm bill commodity programs. It is imperative that counter-
     cyclical payment rates, loan rates and direct payments be 
     preserved as adopted in FSRIA. We are opposed to any changes 
     in current payment limitations for direct payments, counter-
     cyclical payments, loan deficiency payments (LDP) and 
     marketing loan gains (MLG), including a separate payment 
     limitation for the peanut program. Current rules on spouses, 
     three-entities, generic certificates and actively engaged 
     requirements should be retained.
       AFBF supports country-of-origin labeling (COOL) as passed 
     in the 2002 farm bill. Many farmers and ranchers believe that 
     the products they grow in the United States should be labeled 
     a product of the United States at the retail sales level. 
     With increased trade, more products are being imported into 
     the United States, giving the consumers greater choices at 
     the marketplace. Farm Bureau is working with the Agricultural 
     Marketing Service (AMS) at USDA to implement the program with 
     the least amount of burden and costs to producers. We are 
     disappointed the legislation blocks further work by USDA to 
     implement country-of-origin labeling for meat and poultry 
     products. We ask that you support the restoration of funding 
     for this important program.
       Farm bill conservation programs should be fully funded. 
     Full implementation of the Environmental Quality Incentive 
     Program (EQIP) and Conservation Security Program (CSP) is key 
     to assisting agricultural producers in complying with 
     environmental regulations and addressing important 
     conservation issues nationwide. Program funding for technical 
     assistance is essential if conservation programs are to be 
     successful. While we are pleased that the bill increases 
     funding for conservation operations activities, we are 
     disappointed that funding for CSP is blocked and limits have 
     been placed on EQIP.
       The development of alternative energy sources is not only 
     significant to the advancement of American agriculture but 
     also

[[Page 17867]]

     is vital to enhancing our nation's energy security. The 2002 
     farm bill contained an energy title that includes provisions 
     for federal procurement of bio-based products, bio-refinery 
     development grants, a biodiesel fuel education program, 
     renewable energy development program, renewable energy 
     systems, a bioenergy program and biomass research and 
     development. These programs will assist rural economic 
     development as well as increase our nation's energy 
     independence. We are disappointed that the bill under 
     consideration does not include funding for key programs that 
     promote alternative energy sources.
       Thank you for your consideration of these issues of 
     importance to farmers and ranchers.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bob Stallman,
                                                        President.

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm) as a demonstration of strong bipartisan support in 
opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, many of us have spent countless hours on 
country-of-origin labeling on the authorizing committee both during the 
discussion on the farm bill and since. The Committee on Agriculture has 
conducted a series of briefings on country-of-origin labeling to 
educate staff on the implementation of the requirements, and recently 
held a full committee hearing on the issue. The gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Hayes), chairman of the subcommittee, has indicated that 
he will hold additional hearings on this issue in the near future.
  It is not my purpose to stand in opposition to the amendment to 
subvert the law. I am standing here saying we want this to work; and 
for it to work, it will take an additional 1 year of time to make it 
work.
  I question the wisdom of a mandate to include on labels every piece 
of information that a random consumer survey identifies as something 
consumers want to know. Current U.S. food labeling requirements are 
based on the attributes of the food itself, such as nutritional 
composition, ingredients, special safety considerations such as 
presence of allergens and requirements of handling and safe use.
  This was pointed out by the previous administration in a letter to 
the EU concerning biotechnology. Every additional piece of information 
we require on a label by government mandate diminishes slightly the 
information that is already there.
  I have heard that Americans know where their shirts are made, 
Americans know where their cars are made, but not what they are putting 
in their mouth. I say what is wrong with this picture? Those who say 
that are right, we do not know where these things are made, but these 
items do not have to participate under guidelines even remotely similar 
to those included in the current COOL law. Members will notice their 
shirt may say ``Made in the USA,'' but it does not say where the cotton 
came from or where the dye that went into the shirt came from.
  Be careful what we ask for when we stand on this floor and say we 
want to mandate something, just in case we get what we are asking for. 
Every single beef producer group that testified in front of the 
Committee on Agriculture testified very clearly that this is a 
marketing issue and not a food safety issue. Too many of us in this 
body right now tend to mix the two together in saying that meat that 
does not come from the United States is not safe. Please do not send 
that message to the consumer because the consumer today in America has 
the most abundant food supply, the best quality of food, the safest at 
the lowest cost to our people of any other country in the world; and 
when we begin to suggest that unless there is a certain label there 
will be a problem with the safety of the food, it is dangerous for 
producers. That is why most producers do not support the full intent of 
this law, and that is to mandate something that no one has yet figured 
out how to do.
  We exempt most meat from even the applications of the law. 
Restaurants are exempted, for example. So let us be careful as we vote 
on this amendment today. And again I point out, this is not a food-
safety issue. This is a marketing issue. If we are going to deal with 
the food safety, and I fully concur and fully intend to be back on this 
floor very, very soon with a food safety component, trace back. Our 
producers today are beginning to look at how can we truly certify where 
our meat comes from from a BSE standpoint. In Canada, they have a 
trace-back system. We do not have a trace-back system yet, but we will 
have one soon because producers all over the country recognize that we 
must have a way of tracing. We do not have it yet, but we will have one 
that will be supported by a majority of our producers.
  This is one of those things that gets very emotional because there 
are those that tend to mix this up with food safety. I want to repeat 
for the third time, this is not a food-safety question. I absolutely 
support identifying where all food products come from to the best of 
our ability. I happen to believe, for example, that American lamb 
identified as such and Australian lamb identified as such is something 
that the consumer ought to know. We are working to get that kind of 
agreement and do it in a way that makes sense.
  But if we implement this in the way that those who support this 
amendment are suggesting today, we are going to create some tremendous 
uncertainty. This has all kinds of trade implications. It has all kinds 
of food-safety implications. With all due respect to those offering 
this amendment, it is interesting that most of the producers supporting 
this do not deal with Canadian or Mexican cattle. If we want to ban all 
Canadian cattle, all Mexican cattle into the United States, then be 
prepared to have all United States cattle banned from country after 
country after country, because under trade agreements, reciprocation is 
something that we truly agree to. I urge Members to oppose this 
amendment and support the delay, not circumvention of the law, but a 
delay to get this right.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to observe one thing. The history of this 
country has demonstrated that every time there is an effort to provide 
additional regulation or additional oversight in order to help workers 
or help farmers, or to help little guys against the big guys, somehow 
it is always too costly. We cannot provide the minimum wage, we cannot 
provide wage and hour protection, or this or that because it is going 
to cost too much.
  Well, I would bet if we conducted a poll of consumers, that they 
would, by overwhelming numbers, say that they want this provision to go 
forward. We have a tremendous debate in this country going on about the 
virtues of globalization. As far as I am concerned, globalization is 
inevitable; it is going to happen, and we need to figure out how to 
adjust to it. But I also note that in that debate you have numerous 
forces in this country who under the rubric of globalization would lead 
you to believe that there is still no legitimate amount of room for 
discussing the virtues and values of home-grown products, whether it is 
automobiles or farm products.
  I suggest to Members that even if we take the assertion of the 
gentleman from Texas at face value, and I do, let us say that this is 
not a consumer health issue, let us say this is not a food-safety 
issue, let us say it is simply a marketing issue.

                              {time}  1400

  This is a marketing tool that our producers have a right to have. 
This is a marketing tool that I assume is the reason that the Farm 
Bureau and the Farmers Union both have indicated their support for this 
provision. Our consumers want to know where the stuff that they eat 
comes from and our farmers want to know that they can demonstrate pride 
that it is their home grown product. This amendment is the only way 
that we are going to let them exercise that right.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), vice chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food

[[Page 17868]]

and Drug Administration and Related Agencies.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the subcommittee chairman for the 
yielding me this time, and I rise in reluctant opposition to this 
amendment.
  First of all, I want to say, no one through the whole process on this 
issue has ever contended that this is a food safety issue. As the 
ranking member of the authorizing committee said three or four times, 
it is very true, this is not an issue of food safety in any way, shape 
or form. The reason I oppose this amendment today is in support of our 
independent producers.
  I would just like to give a little scenario about what is going to 
happen if this is enacted. All we are asking for here is a time-out to 
study the issue more closely before a mandatory system is enacted. But 
what we are going to see is a system where independent producers are 
going to bear the cost of implementation of this law, and anyone who 
thinks that the packers really care about the cost on this are totally 
mistaken. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, any kind of cost 
that they would incur is going to result in reduced bids to the 
independent producers out there who do not control the price that they 
get for their products.
  The situation in my State is that we have Canadian pigs coming into 
Iowa to be grown out primarily by independent producers. If this is 
enacted, we are going to see the large conglomerates start from 
raising, farrowing their own hogs, growing those hogs out, killing 
those hogs, putting them in their own labeling package, marketing 
themselves. Those are going to all say ``USA.'' The independent 
producers' animals are going to have to say that they were bred in 
Canada or wherever they came from and are going to be discriminated 
against.
  The issue here is, do we preserve our independent producers? We talk 
about vertical integration in the livestock industry. Nothing is going 
to bring it on faster than provisions like this that will hold the 
independent producer accountable but not the major, multinational 
companies.
  So I just stand here in support of the independent producers and look 
at the mandate that is going to be put on them and what it is going to 
cost them.
  The one question I have asked producers, in what way, shape or form 
is this ever going to put one more cent in your pocket, in your bottom 
line? No one has been able to answer that question. So I think we have 
to step back, take a look at this, and understand all of the 
ramifications of this issue.
  Also, Mr. Chairman, I have to look at the cost to the consumer out 
there when we talk about the additional costs that are going to be 
borne by the retailers. Who is going to pay the bill? The consumers who 
walk in and buy that at the counter are going to absorb the cost. So, 
in support of independent producers and consumers, I reluctantly say 
that we should oppose this amendment and support our independent 
producers.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Wu).
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Montana for yielding 
me this time. I rise in strong support of my colleague from Montana and 
my colleague from Oregon's amendment on meat origin labeling.
  The opponents of this amendment argue complexity and delay. I want to 
offer simplicity and probably brevity here. We created the strongest 
securities and financial industry in the world by asking for 
disclosure, labeling and disclosure a few decades ago. That was opposed 
tremendously by the industry at that time. However, I believe that many 
segments of the industry would support that today because that 
disclosure has been helpful to the securities and financial industry.
  As previously pointed out, I would like to make a point that 
labeling, I believe, is a good thing. I can look at the back of this 
tie and determine that it is made in America. I can look at the 
labeling in this suit and determine that it is made in America. If I go 
to the cloakroom right now and eat a hot dog, I cannot tell where that 
product came from. It comes down to this. I think it really is very, 
very simple. People ought to know and people ought to be able to 
choose. As your mothers and your grandmothers admonish you, you are 
what you eat. I ask this Congress to support this amendment so that 
people can eat American and be American.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dooley), a Member who is considered an expert in this 
field.
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment. I think we need to reflect on why the National Beef 
Cattlemen's Association and why the National Pork Association, who 
represents the majority of producers of those livestock commodities 
which are subject to this mandatory labeling, why they oppose this. 
They oppose this legislation because they realize that it is going to 
result in additional cost to their producer, be they small or be they 
large.
  They also understand that this also is not a health issue, and they 
make a distinction on what is the appropriate role of government in 
terms of placing mandates on producers and that we should have mandates 
when we have an issue that is related to the health of consumers, but 
we should not have a government mandate when it relates to a marketing 
issue. That is what this measure is all about.
  We have had a number of my colleagues that have got up on the floor 
and said, we have labeling of our items of clothing that we wear. But 
we do not have labeling on our clothing that we wear that tells where 
the wool came from, where the cotton came from or any of the products 
that are part of this. We only know where this product, where this 
clothing, was actually manufactured. We are going far beyond that in 
this approach.
  There is nothing in law today that precludes producers from having 
the opportunity to voluntarily label where their beef or pork or meat 
product came from. That is the appropriate tack I think that we should 
be taking today. We should once again I think back up and at least have 
another time-out, which is what the chairman's proposal does, to give 
the industry more time to understand how we can move forward in a more 
responsible manner.
  This amendment that is on the floor today is one which will, 
unfortunately, cost producers the most. And what also I think is very 
apparent, it is going to create an unintended consequence of exposing 
producers to liability, exposing them to private rights of action by 
groups that might be motivated by welfare issues, by a whole host of 
issues that will now have an opportunity to seek legal and civil 
recourse against a lot of small and large livestock producers. That is 
not what we should be doing with this legislation.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I think the gentleman from Montana for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today as the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) 
said he was reluctantly opposing, I am reluctantly supporting this 
amendment. I have kind of been back and forth on this. But I think it 
is the best way for us to resolve this issue if we can keep the 
mandatory provision in place.
  The main reason I am supporting this is that we should not be dealing 
with this issue in the Committee on Appropriations. This issue should 
be dealt with in the authorizing committee. I was ranking member on the 
Subcommittee on Livestock and Horticulture for many years and worked on 
this issue on the voluntary and all the other things. I was on the farm 
bill conference. The big problem here is that the language that was put 
into the farm bill is bad language, and it needs to be fixed. It has 
got problems. The authorizing committee ought to do that.
  I totally agree this is not a food safety issue. It gets mixed up. It 
is a marketing issue. But I think people need to understand that we are 
arguing something that we do not even know what it is going to be. The 
rule has not been developed. There are people out doing studies saying 
it is going to cost this

[[Page 17869]]

much. We do not know what it is going to be because there has been 
nothing that has been put forward at this point.
  I would just like to point out, people have brought up this issue of 
marketing versus food safety. In the food safety area, we have had this 
BSE issue in Canada and everybody has read about that, but I do not 
know if people understand how it is that we guarantee in this country 
that we are BSE-free. You talk about the complications of this system. 
What we are doing in the BSE area, the food safety area, we are asking 
producers to sign a self-certification that they have not fed animal 
parts to cattle in this country and that they have not used certain 
kinds of antibiotics. It is self-certified, very simple and does not 
cost anybody hardly anything. I am arguing that the same thing could be 
done with the marketing aspect of this COOL. In other words, if this is 
good enough to guarantee that we do not have BSE in our livestock, then 
why is it not good enough to certify that this is where the livestock 
came from?
  My point is that this could be implemented in a way that is not very 
expensive to producers. These issues that are there are caused by the 
way the law was written, and it was inserted into the farm bill, and, 
frankly, I do not think we took enough time at that point to go through 
that and fully understand the implications.
  So I think that the Committee on Agriculture ought to be dealing with 
this. I think that there are problems with the law. There are potential 
problems with implementation. I do not think there has to be. But it 
ought to be dealt with in the Committee on Agriculture and not on the 
floor of the House and not in the Committee on Appropriations in my 
judgment. I think the administration ought to have been out there with 
some rulemaking at this point so that we had some better idea what they 
are intending to do.
  I am going to support this amendment. I think if we keep this in the 
law it is going to make the committee move faster. We will then be able 
to resolve this. Because I think, in the end, people want to have the 
food labeled. It is just a question of how we get there. I think there 
are simple ways that this could be done that are not going to cost 
people a lot of money. I encourage the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) who has a great expertise on this 
subject.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I commend the chairman of this 
subcommittee for his leadership on this issue and trying to get a 
little common sense back into what has become a very difficult issue.
  Mr. Chairman, this provision was added into the farm bill without a 
single hearing. Nobody actually in the business came and talked about 
how you do this and exactly what you do. It sounds good, that we all 
ought to have a label that says where our meat comes from. The problem 
is when you start working through how you implement it, it gets very 
complicated.
  Let me just mention a couple of ways it gets complicated.
  Number one, the underlying law exempts about 75 percent of the meat 
that is consumed in this country. If you eat it in a restaurant, it 
does not count. It is not labeled. If it is hamburger or other sort of 
processed meats, it does not count. It is not labeled. If it is 
chicken, if it is turkey, you do not get a label.
  We have heard over and over that the consumers have a right to know. 
If the consumers have a right to know where their meat comes from, they 
have a right to know where 100 percent of their meat comes from rather 
than 25 percent of their meat; and so the effect of this is that we are 
adding a regulatory burden on 25 percent of the meat. That leaves 75 
percent of the meat which is at a competitive advantage because of a 
government regulation. That is not right. It is time to step back and 
figure out how to do this thing right.
  Number two, we hear over and over again how this is really going to 
be good for producers, that this is a market tool and they ought to be 
just loving having this opportunity. I would say that if producers see 
an opportunity to make money, they are going to take advantage of it. 
There are efforts in the beef industry today, the certified Angus 
program and other things have been very successful, but that is 
different than a government mandate that tells you what you must do.
  It is not the big grocery stores that are going to pay this burden, 
it is not the big packers that are going to pay this burden and, in 
some ways, it is not even the largest cattle feeding operations. The 
people that are going to feel this burden are the cow-calf producers 
who have got to figure out some way to understand this regulation and 
then go comply with it before anybody will buy their calves, and then 
the stocker guys who take the calves and try to fatten them up before 
they go to the feed lot, those people on the low end of the production 
scale. So when we talk about big guys versus little guys, we ought to 
understand that this is a mandate that is going to be paid for by the 
little guys in the operation.
  We have heard it over and over again that this is not a safety issue, 
this is a marketing tool, and we are going to make you do it whether 
you like it or not. That does not make sense. What makes a lot more 
sense is to take a time-out as the underlying bill does, give the 
Committee on Agriculture a chance to go and talk to producers as well 
as grocery stores and packers and consumers, people up and down the 
chain, and see how you can make something that works and actually makes 
sense.

                              {time}  1415

  This underlying law is not it, and I would say that anyone who wants 
to justify the underlying law has a very steep hill to climb.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, who controls the time as far as closing?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin). The gentleman from 
Texas has the right to close.
  Mr. REHBERG. Why would that be if it is my amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is the manager of 
the underlying bill. He reserves the right to close.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of talk about experts on this floor. I 
am a member of the National Cattlemen's Association not because I am a 
Member of the Congress but was because I am a cattle producer. Less 
than 3 years I was on the ranch, running 147 cows, seven bulls, 2,000 
cashmere goats. In Montana we know where our product comes from, and we 
know where it goes. It may not be a safety issue until one needs it.
  Let me read this article again: ``In June, officials learned five 
bulls from a Canadian herd linked to the Alberta cow with the disease 
were sold to a Montana ranch in 1997.'' 1997. ``The paper trails 
created by the State's inspection process traced in less than 20 hours 
where the bulls had been and where they ended up.'' That is not bad. We 
know where they came from. We know where they went. And if we had not 
had that opportunity, it would have shut our borders down too. It would 
have been devastating to our industry.
  I am amazed that there would be any opposition from any party in this 
country to know where their cattle come from, where their meat comes 
from so that we have the ability to tell people where it has gone in 
case these kinds of situations occur. So one can say it is not a safety 
issue until such time as one needs to know where they came from and 
where they went.
  This provision within the farm bill does not even take place, it does 
not become implemented until September of 2004. That is plenty of time. 
And to the gentleman from Texas when he talks about the fact that it is 
a delay of 1 year, no. If they had wanted it to say only a delay for 1 
year, the amendment in the subcommittee would have said that, and it 
does not. If they want to put that in, we can talk about that; but we 
are not at that point because what this does do is if they do not vote

[[Page 17870]]

for my amendment, they in fact will stop, they will kill because nobody 
within the administration will spend any money on it because it says 
they cannot implement it. So there is no ability to spend money on it. 
Trade implications, yes, there are trade implications to this. But not 
to the extent that they are talking about.
  Again, I repeat, Japanese officials said that trade would be banned 
beginning September 1 if the United States cannot certify that exports 
contain no Canadian beef. How can we do that if we do not keep track of 
our country-of-origin labeling? Volunteerism, that is great; but that 
is smoke and mirrors. It is never going to happen because our 
retailers, our packing plants will not play with us little guys. I know 
because I felt the victim sitting back on my ranch with 147 calves 
wondering what my price was going to be. I was a price taker, not a 
price maker. Little guys like me do not make price. The big guys do, 
and an entire industry was created in Texas for the very purpose of 
taking advantage of importing cattle from foreign countries to mix with 
ours, to take advantage of our good products, entire industries.
  So there is no doubt there is another State standing here on the 
opposite side. There is no doubt that they would be parochial as I 
would be parochial, but do the Members know what? I live along the 
border, and we do in fact have the Northwest Compact. We do business 
back and forth. But all we are trying to do is create an opportunity to 
be proud of American beef, to give us the opportunity to take advantage 
of an opportunity to showcase what we do for the American consumer. We 
have had opposition against this all along the way, and it has not 
ended. And when our chairman of the subcommittee talks about 
appropriateness, the appropriate place to have killed this bill with 
this proposal would have been in the farm bill or introduced 
legislation, but not to take the funding out from underneath or the 
implementation because what they are in fact saying is we did not want 
it before, but we want to win it behind closed doors.
  And I have come to the conclusion, and I have been in this business a 
few years both as a State legislator and as a lieutenant governor, 
people support reform as long as it does not change anything. And that 
is what we are seeing here right now. Nobody wants to change anything 
because they are kind of comfortable with their position in the 
marketplace. I do not market. True, I do the best that I can on my 
little 147-cow operation, but I will tell the Members who does the 
marketing. It is the big guys.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman 
Bonilla) for yielding me this time.
  I rise today in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Montana (Mr. Rehberg) and the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. 
Hooley). I applaud the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) for 
including a provision in the agriculture appropriations bill that would 
limit USDA funding for the implementing of the mandatory country-of-
origin labeling for meat and meat products. The country-of-origin 
labeling law as written clearly requires more congressional attention 
before going into effect by September 30, 2004. I have friends on both 
sides of this issue, and I always support my friends. I support my 
friends with this amendment by cautioning them against the hasty 
implementation of unintended consequences that no one has yet fully 
researched, and I support my friends on the gentleman from Texas's 
(Chairman Bonilla) side by saying this is something that we do not need 
to do now. Recognizing there are many concerns among producers, 
processors, suppliers and retailers, the House Committee on Agriculture 
held a hearing on June 26 for witnesses to discuss how mandatory 
country-of-origin labeling will affect them and their respect to 
industry. The hearing raised many questions, and the livestock 
witnesses specifically pointed out that there is tremendous potential 
for unintended consequence.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Livestock and Horticulture of the 
Committee on Agriculture, I intend to hold further hearings on this 
matter. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has held 12 listening 
sessions across the country from April to June of this year to allow 
those who will be affected by the law to voice their opinions. This was 
in addition to the numerous other producer and trade association 
meetings they have attended to discuss this law.
  Country-of-origin labeling is not a new concept. The Subcommittee on 
Livestock and Horticulture held hearings on the issue during previous 
Congresses, and it was debated at some length during the House 
committee's consideration of the 2002 farm bill. The committee voted 
not to include the provision because there were too many unknowns about 
how this would affect producers. When the farm bill went to the floor, 
an amendment was added to label fruits and vegetables only.
  As the Senate created their version of a farm bill, a provision was 
expanded to include beef, pork, lamb, fruits, vegetables, wild and 
farm-raised fish, and peanuts. I think it is important to note that the 
Senate held no hearings and had no debate on how producers and the 
industry would be affected by country-of-origin labeling.
  I have heard concerns from many of my constituents about this issue, 
predominantly my livestock producers. I can tell the Members that not 
one of them has said this law will bring additional revenue or market 
advantages. They all express their deep concern that this law instead 
will bring them undue burdens and headaches in order to be in 
compliance. Unfortunately, a ``fire, ready, aim'' approach led to the 
creation of the country-of-origin labeling law. This issue clearly 
needs further attention, and delaying the implementation for meat and 
meat products is a step in the right direction. I would like to 
reiterate that this provision only affects meat and meat products. The 
current law will continue to go into effect for fruits, vegetables, 
wild and farm-raised fish, and peanuts. I urge my colleagues to support 
the appropriations bill and reject the Rehberg-Hooley amendment.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I have no requests for time, and I 
continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I consume.
  I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee for this good 
consideration today and my colleagues for speaking on behalf of my 
amendment.
  I have not been around the Congress all that long. This is my second 
term. I was confronted with a brand-new farm bill. That is one way to 
get your feet wet, drinking out of the fire hydrant, stepping into the 
middle of that. When I hear the debate about the fact that there has 
not been enough conversation, enough debate, we do not know where this 
is taking us, I remind my colleagues that this does not get implemented 
until September of 2004. We have got well over a year to continue the 
hearings, to continue the work on it. Congress can continue to have 
hearings. We can help the process along the way and develop the right 
country-of-origin labeling.
  During the farm bill discussion that I was confronted with as a 
freshman, the country-of-origin labeling debate consumed 25 percent of 
the markup dialogue, 25 percent. So why are certain people reluctant to 
want to have beef or other meats labeled? Because they want to have the 
ability to blend cheaper products from other places for the purposes of 
marketing themselves. But are we seeing the cheaper price at the 
consumer level? Not always.
  It is interesting to watch the marketing of our meat products 
throughout this country. If the beef guys jump up and complain, 
somebody steps forward and pushes pork in front of them or they might 
push chicken in front of them. We at the local level, us small guys, do 
not control the marketing. We need this avenue. We are proud of our 
product. And at a time when we are in a recession, at a time when much 
of

[[Page 17871]]

American agriculture is flat on its back, we need the opportunity to 
say America matters to us in agriculture, America matters to the 
consumer; and if we can marry the two, our agricultural producers 
throughout this country, the mom-and-pops in Iowa and Montana and Texas 
and California and Georgia and Connecticut will all know that they have 
done a good thing because we have said American products matter.
  We are not banning anything from a foreign country. We are not trying 
to create a competitive disadvantage. All we are trying to do is say 
give us the opportunity, us small guys to have the opportunity to have 
mandatory country-of-origin labeling so we know where our product is 
coming from, so we can take great pride in the product that we produce.
  The country-of-origin labeling gives American shoppers a choice. It 
gives American farmers and ranchers fairness. It gives us the 
opportunity to say buy America. Please support this amendment. Support 
the country-of-origin labeling.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Once again I want to reiterate that often times in this town, 
unfortunately, truth and substance are set aside and emotional pleas 
are made in order to advance a certain cause. The opposition to this 
amendment is supported strongly. The opposition is strongly supported 
by thousands, millions of red-blooded Americans out there who are 
either producers or they are part of the processing of meat. They are 
running grocery stores in neighborhoods all over the country. They do 
not want this provision implemented until it can be studied further and 
analyzed and done the right way. And again ultimately if this is 
implemented, the bills at the grocery store, there will be sticker 
shock in many of the grocery aisles out there as Americans wonder what 
happened; how did Congress implement such a libelous costly regulation 
so quickly without even taking the time to do so.
  And let us also understand that any producer out there can now put 
labels on whatever they would like. There is an implication here 
somehow that there is some prohibition now on putting a label on any 
meat product. They can do that now today anytime they want. Also the 
implication somehow that this is going to threaten our food supply, I 
am delighted that many of the authorizers have stepped forward today in 
a bipartisan way to state clearly this is about marketing, this is not 
about any kind of food-safety issue.
  This is, again, a 1-year prohibition on implementation or 
promulgation or developing of any regulations. So, again, the 
misinformation that has been presented that this is somehow an effort 
to kill this permanently is misguided. This appropriations bill simply 
runs for 1 year.
  Finally, I would like to state very clearly that the Bush 
administration, the administration has put out a statement saying that 
the administration supports the committee's position on country-of-
origin labeling for meat or meat products. So there is strong 
bipartisan support for our position on this issue. Everyone, again, 
from the chairman of the authorizing committee; the ranking member; the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus; 
the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) of the Congressional 
Black Caucus, again across the board the widespread support that we 
have on our side in taking a position I think is very clear.
  And, again, if we would look at the substance in truth about what we 
are debating here, we would hope to defeat this amendment resoundingly.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Rehberg-Hooley 
amendment, which strikes the provision in this bill that prohibits USDA 
from implementing mandatory country of origin labeling for meat and 
meat-products.
  Country-of-origin labeling is about giving people the information 
they need to make an informed choice to protect the safety of their 
families. Thirty-five countries we trade with including Canada, Mexico 
and members of the European Union already have a country-of-origin 
labeling in place. And American families recognize the need for this 
labeling--7 out of 10 people say they are willing to pay more to know 
where their food is coming from. At a time when food imports are 
increasing, but the number of inspections of imported meat is actually 
decreasing, consumers deserve that right.
  And given the record 57 million pounds of recalled meat last year, 
this effort is also about being able to trace back contaminated product 
in the event of a recall. Knowing the source of an outbreak is a 
critical part of that process so that we can quickly take action to 
prevent people from getting sick. This is critically important 
considering the 76 million sicknesses and 5,000 deaths that occur every 
year from foodborne illness.
  Some have argued that halting implementation of country of origin 
labeling for meat is to allow more time to consider the impact of the 
program on the food industry. But Congress already gave the USDA more 
than 2 years to design a program that is fair to all parties, including 
industry and consumers. Under that timetable, labeling is not scheduled 
to become mandatory until fall of 2004.
  Mr. Chairman, country of origin labeling will not violate trade 
agreements or lead to retaliation. It will not bankrupt the food 
industry. It will simply let consumers know where their food comes 
from. We owe the American people that. Support the Rehberg-Hooley 
amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of Rehberg-Hooley 
amendment which would preserve country-of-origin labeling (COOL) 
requirements.
  As many of my colleagues know, in 2002, provisions were added to the 
Farm Bill requiring grocery stores and similar businesses to provide 
country-of-origin information for all fresh and frozen fruits and 
vegetables, red meats, seafood and peanuts.
  However, during the subcommittee markup of the Agriculture 
Appropriations bill, language was added barring implementation of these 
provisions.
  Mr. Chairman, we were elected by the people of this country because 
they believe in our ability to represent their views. We passed the 
original legislation requiring country-of-origin labeling because our 
constituents want the information they deserve to make informed food 
purchase decisions for their families. We passed this legislation 
because our constituents want additional steps taken to prevent the 
potential spread of diseases such as mad cow, which we know was 
recently discovered in Canada. We passed this legislation because our 
constituents want special protective measures put in place to prevent 
tampering with respect to our food supply.
  The provision currently in the bill would keep the American people in 
the dark by refusing to fund efforts to implement country-of-origin 
labeling for meat and meat products. We cannot let that happen. I 
encourage support of the Rehberg-Hooley Amendment.

                              {time}  1430

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin). The question is on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. REHBERG. 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 Montana (Mr. 
Rehberg) will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hefley

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hefley:
       Add at the end (before the short title) the following new 
     section:
       Sec. __. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated 
     or otherwise made available by a provision of law is hereby 
     reduced by one percent.

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we have 10 
minutes for debate on this amendment, 5 minutes controlled by me and 5 
minutes controlled by the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page 17872]]

  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that would cut 
discretionary spending in the Agriculture, Rural Development, and Food 
and Drug Administration spending bill by 1 percent. This bill, as it is 
currently written, appropriates $17 billion in discretionary spending, 
and reducing this funding by a mere 1 percent would leave us with a 
funding level of $16.83 billion.
  I hasten to say to the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) that I 
am not doing this as a recrimination of the job that he or his 
committee has done. It is my intention to offer this or similar 
amendments on almost all of the appropriations bills. I had an 
amendment such as this drafted for the labor bill last week, and 
somehow or other it got lost in the shuffle, and we did not get it on. 
But I intend to do this on most of the bills.
  There are many good things in this bill, so I am not singling this 
bill out to attack. I do this in recognition of the fact that we should 
not be spending money that we simply do not have.
  Current CBO projections indicate the Federal Government is likely to 
end fiscal year 2003 with a deficit of more than $400 billion. Instead 
of continuing to increase spending, I submit that we should exercise 
fiscal restraint and work to alleviate shortfalls. Yet we continue to 
pour money into programs with little concern for current economic 
considerations.
  While I realize that some programs funded under this legislation are 
receiving a decrease from fiscal year 2003, there are still a number of 
programs receiving substantial increases, and let me just highlight a 
few of these programs. The rural housing loan authorization is funded 
at $4.4 billion, an increase of $208.7 million over last year and $45.7 
million over the President's budget request.
  Distance learning and telemedicine program loans are funded at $636 
million, which is an increase of $256 million over last year and $250 
million above the President's budget request.
  Conservation operations funded at $850 million, an increase of $30.4 
million over last year and $136.4 million over the President's budget 
request.
  I am not attacking these individual programs. These are good 
programs. But I am simply asking, can we afford these kind of 
increases? Clearly, balancing the budget is no longer a priority in 
this Congress. I think it should be. So I ask Members to support the 1 
percent modest reduction in this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and 
ask unanimous consent to control the 5 minutes in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Bonilla) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the authorizing committee.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the 
appropriations subcommittee for yielding me this time in strong 
opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado.
  I would say to the gentleman that I have supported his amendments 
from time to time, but I do not believe he has looked at the facts 
here. We are $872 million less than last year right now. That is far 
greater than the 1 percent cut the gentleman is asking for. So we have 
already done the work that he has asked for in this case.
  Secondly, because of the fact we are already taking that huge a cut, 
I can only say that the gentleman's amendment constitutes an assault on 
rural America. This is something that we simply cannot tolerate.
  The gentleman cited the few areas where there have been some 
significant increases, one of those being telemedicine. As the 
gentleman knows, the telemedicine program is designed to link rural 
America, people in clinics and small hospitals and other rural 
outposts, where they can get some health care treatment, with the major 
university hospitals that get all the health care money in the first 
place.
  So if you cut out the money that allows them to tap into really good 
health care provisions by being able to access them, and we held a 
hearing on this subject in the committee just a couple of weeks ago on 
the demonstration of the technology that can now reach rural America, 
if we are able to get these thousands of sites in small communities 
across America, which does cost a lot of money, and that is why I am 
pleased the chairman of the subcommittee has put an increase in there 
for this, if you cut that out, you are doing a lot more than just 
cutting out that money. You are cutting out the ability of folks in the 
smallest communities in the country from being able to finally get 
access to the kind of quality health care that people in large urban 
areas have, because they will be getting it from the same doctors with 
the same expertise drawing those same big salaries at those 
universities hospitals, and now they will be able to reach the smaller 
communities.
  So I would encourage the gentleman to look elsewhere for the kind of 
savings that he is talking about here. I urge my colleagues to oppose 
the amendment.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goodlatte) for making some excellent points in opposition to this 
amendment. He is absolutely correct.
  Over $872 million is the figure that we are under last year's budget. 
We are $136 million under the budget request. I would ask the gentleman 
proposing the amendment, is this not enough? We are learning to tighten 
the belt. We have cut the budget. We are lowering spending on this bill 
and still trying to deal with the needs in this country, that this 
country has in the areas of agriculture. So I cannot more firmly state 
my opposition to this amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
and would respectfully ask him to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goodlatte), I was not suggesting that telemedicine is not a good thing 
for rural America or some of these other things. I am simply saying 
there are many spots in the agriculture bill where you could find the 1 
percent I think that would not hurt rural America. I certainly do not 
mean to make an assault on rural America.
  For many years, every week I give a Porker of the Week Award for what 
I consider to be wasteful spending. There is no department in the 
Federal Government that has not received that award, and all of them 
have received it at one time or another, defense, which I am most 
interested in, and others have received it. There is no department that 
has received it more than the Department of Agriculture over the years.
  There is 1 percent there. I would hope we would take that 1 percent 
out. I do commend the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) and the 
committee on the cuts that have already been made. I just think we can 
go a little further.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, at this time I would just once again state my strong 
opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HEFLEY. 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 Colorado 
(Mr. Hefley) will be postponed.

[[Page 17873]]




                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Holt

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Holt:
       Add at the end (before the short title) the following new 
     section:
       Sec. __. For the program of public education regarding the 
     use of biotechnology in producing food for human consumption, 
     as authorized by section 10802 of the Farm Security and Rural 
     Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-171; 7 U.S.C. 5921a), 
     $1,000,000, and the amount otherwise provided by this Act for 
     ``Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments'' 
     is hereby reduced by, $1,000,000.

  Mr. HOLT (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 New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering today will 
provide $1 million to establish and develop the food biotechnology 
public education program that was authorized in the Farm Act, H.R. 
2646, during the 107th Congress, but was never funded.
  The use of biotechnology, such as to produce genetically engineered 
foods, has the potential to improve yields of nutritionally enhanced 
foods with less land, reduced use of pesticides and herbicides, can 
benefit farmers, consumers and the environment.
  The history of agriculture has indeed been a history of progress. Now 
there is an immediate and critical need for accurate information, both 
on food production systems that have provided the American consumer 
with a diversified and healthful food supply, and on the role of this 
new technology in food production. It is only based on clear, accurate, 
and scientific information that consumers can make sense of the often 
sensational risk and benefit claims reported and rumored.
  In 1999, for example, the journal ``Nature'' published a study 
suggesting that pollen from genetically modified corn would harm the 
monarch butterfly population. This sparked a worldwide controversy. 
Follow-up studies have shown since that the pollen presents no 
significant danger to monarchs, but the foundation of fear based on 
emotion had been set, and soon other nonscience-based allegations about 
biotechnology emerged.
  I have been asked if this amendment is an anti-biotechnology or a 
pro-biotechnology amendment. I would argue that it is an anti-ignorance 
amendment. It is not to say that biotechnology is always benign under 
all circumstances; but consumers, researchers, and farmers will benefit 
from a public that is well informed and engaged in the debate about 
food biotechnology.
  Although food biotechnology has immense potential, consumers and 
farmers have legitimate concerns regarding the safety of genetically 
engineered foods. No one, however, is served by assertions from 
ignorance. It is appropriate for the government to provide the public 
with clear evidence-based information that helps consumers, 
policymakers and others make informed choices about food.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, so that the 
Department of Agriculture will have the necessary funding to carry out 
this authorized program and so that the public will be best informed.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman raises some very legitimate points about 
the need for funding in this area. However, this amendment was 
presented to us at the 11th hour, and it is not even clear under the 
language of this amendment how this money would be administered. So we 
would be delighted to try to work with the gentleman down the road 
between here and conference to see if we can do something on this. 
However, at the 11th hour like this, when we are presented with an 
amendment, I must oppose it at this time.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONILLA. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, my amendment actually is silent on exactly 
how the money would be allocated within the Department. Perhaps it 
could be through the Food Safety and Inspection Service. But the point 
is, this is authorized, and it is provided for under the authorization; 
and I think it will be easy to fit into the Department's public 
education activities.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONILLA. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from New 
Jersey, because I appreciated his comments about biotechnology and we 
certainly do want the public to be educated about this, if he would not 
take up the offer of the gentleman from Texas, the chairman of the 
subcommittee, to work with him. Withdraw the amendment, work with him, 
and see if there is not something that can be done as we move to 
conference, because not knowing exactly how this money would be spent 
is sort of like writing a blank check.
  I think if we had a little more cooperation and a little more 
communication about what we intended, then the Congress could actually 
be the ones to specify that, and there might be some merit in the 
gentleman's position.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, let me 
ask the chairman of the authorizing committee if he did not have in 
mind how this would be administered in the Department of Agriculture.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, let 
me say I was not the chairman at the time the farm bill was written, so 
I do not know the history of the intent in the language in the farm 
bill. But, again, this is something that has just been brought to my 
attention, and we would be happy to look into it and see what we can 
find in that regard and try to achieve some specificity in terms of how 
the dollars are going to be spent, if indeed we can do that. That, of 
course, is up to the chairman of the subcommittee, but I would 
certainly stand willing to work with the gentleman to try to find the 
right formula and the right dollars that he has to squeeze out of an 
already-tight process to do something in this area, because I think 
what the gentleman from New Jersey is proposing is worthwhile.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield again.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield.
  Mr. HOLT. With those assurances from both Chairs, recognizing that 
the public debate is raging on and the need for this public information 
is now, I would be willing to withdraw my amendment and to work with 
the chairman, with the expectation that we can work something out in 
the coming months in this session of Congress.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we would be happy to 
have our staffs work together on that.
  Again, just hearing about this amendment at this time, it is not 
realistic to say we are going to guarantee a solution, but I think that 
the history that we have on this subcommittee to try to work with 
Members to work through these problems is real, and we would be happy 
to do that.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the amendment is 
withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Bonilla

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Bonilla:
       On page 29, line 15, strike all after the word ``Service'' 
     through, and including, ``(16 U.S.C. 3841(a))'' on line 20.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is to strike a 
provision from the Conservation Operations account that prohibits the 
funds in this account from being used to pay for the salaries and 
expenses of personnel to provide technical assistance for several 
mandatory conservation programs.

[[Page 17874]]

  This amendment is in keeping with an agreement that I made with the 
chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Goodlatte), in hopes that we can ensure that there are adequate 
funds available for conservation technical assistance. I would point 
out that the 2002 Farm Bill included an increase of more than $17 
billion for conservation programs, but I am committed to work with the 
chairman to try to come up with the solution to funding of conservation 
technical assistance.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not use the 5 minutes. I just want to say to the 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture 
that this amendment is pursuant to discussions that we had and we very 
much appreciate his offering it. We think that this will be very 
helpful in making sure that conservation dollars actually reach the 
people who need it: America's farmers and ranchers. This will also help 
to resolve some of the issues regarding the allocation of those funds.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin). The question is on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I rise 
for the purposes of entering into a colloquy with the gentleman from 
Texas (Chairman Bonilla) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), 
the ranking member.
  Mr. Chairman, last year's farm bill authorized the Resident 
Instruction and Distance Education Grants Program for the Insular Areas 
to address the critical agricultural research needs of the Land Grant 
Universities in the U.S. territories and Puerto Rico. We receive very 
little by way of formula funds, t-star grants, and other special 
grants.
  Existing programs simply do not orient themselves toward the Land 
Grant Universities in the insular areas. Additionally, our universities 
have seen no money under the National Research Initiative, the flagship 
agricultural research program. While our institutions are 1862s by 
definition, they have only been established as Land Grant Universities 
for the past 3 decades. This, coupled with the decline in funds for the 
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service overall, 
makes competing with other institutions very difficult. So last year 
Congress authorized a new funding mechanism to provide competitively 
awarded grants to meet the unique needs of this underserved set of 
universities.
  This new authorization is especially important to the Land Grant 
Universities in the insular areas because it will help them to develop 
education and training programs while working in collaboration with 
leading U.S. universities on the mainland, building on their expertise 
and helping us to make the best possible use of limited program 
dollars.
  This year's appropriation bill has no funds whatsoever for this new 
program. As the Land Grant Universities in the insular areas face many 
critical agricultural research needs, including food safety and 
security, health and nutrition, and the environment, I am hopeful that 
this new program will be funded in the near future. Although my request 
to fund this account in this cycle has not been met, I am grateful for 
the inclusion of report language that speaks to this need. I know that 
the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) and the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), our ranking member, are supportive of the Land Grant 
Universities in the insular areas, and I urge them to utilize this new 
program to ensure the survival of these institutions.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. BORDALLO. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentlewoman for 
bringing this matter to our attention. It is a very important issue. We 
recognize the needs of these institutions to be unique and deserving of 
additional support. The committee has included report language 
encouraging the Department to better assist the Land Grant Universities 
in the insular areas and provide us a report describing what steps the 
Department is currently taking to meet their unique needs.
  I look forward to working with the gentlewoman and delegates to 
ensure that the needs of the Land Grant Universities in the insular 
areas are met the best way we possibly can.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. BORDALLO. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I just want to commend the gentlewoman from 
Guam for bringing these issues to our attention and to say what a great 
leader she is on agriculture for the insular areas. We really, without 
her leadership, would not have been made aware. I know both the 
chairman and I, as ranking member, are very grateful to her, and we 
look forward to working with her through conference and for a final 
bill to be produced.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I will place in the Record at this point 
a statement from my colleague, the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. 
Faleomavaega), as well as a joint letter signed by myself, the Resident 
Commissioner of Puerto Rico, the delegate from the Virgin Islands, and 
the delegate from American Samoa.

                                                U.S. Congress,

                                   Washington, DC, March 19, 2003.
     Hon. Henry Bonilla,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, 
         Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, House 
         Committee on Appropriations, Rayburn House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: We are writing to request that $15 
     million be provided in the Fiscal Year 2004 agriculture 
     appropriations bill for the Resident Instruction and Distance 
     Education Grants Program for Insular Area Institutions of 
     Higher Education. This program was authorized by last year's 
     Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (Sec. 7501; Public Law 
     107-171) to strengthen instruction, curriculum and research 
     in the food and agricultural sciences. With this funding the 
     program would enhance the quality of teaching and learning at 
     our nation's land-grant universities in the U.S. territories.
       Collaboration between faculty and students at institutions 
     of higher education in the U.S. territories with colleagues 
     in the U.S. mainland is particularly challenging given the 
     distance between them. Current fragile economic conditions in 
     the U.S. territories also compound the challenges posed by 
     their geographic isolation. Nevertheless, these institutions 
     boast sound and reputable programs in agriculture, natural 
     resources, forestry, veterinary medicine, home economics, and 
     disciplines closely allied to the food and agriculture 
     production and delivery systems. The primary and secondary 
     science and agricultural teachers of these institutions often 
     lack proper credentials though. A distance education program 
     is desperately needed by these educators. Because of the high 
     cost of shipping to the U.S. territories, food costs are high 
     and families are often forced to make unhealthy choices. 
     These unhealthy choices compound an already high incidence of 
     chronic diseases such as diabetes, obesity and heart disease 
     among the populations of the insular areas. Strengthening 
     health and diet outreach education would help to prevent 
     unnecessary trauma for many families. Expertise in 
     environmental management is limited in the islands of insular 
     areas. The insular area land grants are the primary source of 
     higher education for the region and environmental education 
     programs need to be created and strengthened. Building the 
     capacity of the insular area land grants in the areas of 
     distance education, agriculture, health and nutrition and 
     environmental management will improve the overall quality of 
     life and education for U.S. citizens who live in these areas.
       Designating $15 million for this program through the 
     Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 
     Service's (CSREES) research and education activities account 
     is vitally important if we are to support the learning 
     communities of the U.S. territories and provide them the 
     ability to partner with other institutions in the U.S. 
     mainland. Harnessing technology in support of institutional 
     capacity-building in this regard is essential for the success 
     of the land-grant universities in the U.S. territories. Thank 
     you for your consideration of this request. Please do not 
     hesitate to contact us should you have any questions or 
     should you be in need of further information.
           Sincerely,
     Anibal Acevedo-Vila,
     Donna M. Christensen,
     Madeleine Z. Bordallo,
     Eni F.H. Faleomavaega,

[[Page 17875]]

       Members of Congress.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Ackerman

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Ackerman:
       Add at the end (before the short title) the following new 
     section:
       Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     by this Act may be used to approve for human consumption 
     pursuant to the Federal Meat Inspection Act any cattle, 
     sheep, swine, goats, horses, mules, or other equines that are 
     unable to stand or walk unassisted at a slaughtering, 
     packing, meat-canning, rendering, or similar establishment 
     subject to inspection at the point of examination and 
     inspection, as required by section 3(a) of the Federal Meat 
     Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 603(a)).

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on the 
pending amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) 
and any amendments thereto be limited to 30 minutes, to be equally 
divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise today to introduce the Ackerman-LaTourette amendment which 
would prohibit the USDA from expending any funds to approve meat from 
downed animals for human foods.
  This, Mr. Chairman, is a downed animal. Downed animals are livestock 
who collapse, often for unknown reasons. They are unable to walk, 
unable to stand. Animals such as these are inhumanely dragged, very 
often by ropes and by chains, into stockyards where they often spend 
days lying in their own feces. They are sometimes covered in E. coli 
and are at high risk for illnesses such as mad cow disease.
  The smart and humane businesses in this country, such as McDonald's 
and Wendy's and Burger King, all refuse to accept the meat of downed 
animals. They recognize how harmful it could be to their industry and 
what a looming disaster it would be to this country if mad cow disease 
entered our food chain. The USDA, as a matter of fact, prohibits the 
use of downed animals in our own school lunch programs throughout this 
country; and yet these downed animals such as this find their way into 
our food supply and are on the shelves in our supermarkets, our butcher 
shops, and our restaurants. If these downed animals are not safe enough 
and not adequate enough for the fast food restaurants or for our 
children in school, why are they put on America's supermarket shelves?
  The answer, Mr. Chairman, has nothing to do with cows. It has to do 
with pigs. It has to do with greed. For the sake of making a few bucks, 
getting us to eat a crippled cow such as this can cripple the entire 
industry. Less than 1 percent of all animals are downed animals, not a 
big dent in the industry.
  Mr. Chairman, just a few months ago, a mad cow was discovered across 
our border in Alberta, Canada. Their meat standards are almost as good 
as ours, and that one mad cow was a downed animal. That discovery is 
not a coincidence. Study after study after study shows that downed cows 
are much more predisposed to having mad cow disease than the general 
population. The USDA has conducted a study and has concluded that if 
mad cow disease ever did occur in the United States, it would most 
likely be found among downed cattle than the general cattle population.
  Just one infected mad cow crippled all of Canada's meat industry. We 
do not buy cows from Canada anymore. They are absolutely devastated. 
Canada should be a lesson to us. We must pass this legislation.
  The bipartisan amendment that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
LaTourette) and I introduce today will improve the safety of our food 
supply and prevent animals such as these from entering our food chain. 
Last year, we passed this measure in Congress. This year, we have 115 
sponsors of this legislation. It is absolutely imperative that we pass 
this. In the name of food safety, in the name of the humane treatment 
of animals, please pass the Ackerman-LaTourette amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of 
the authorizing committee.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a very bad idea from a public health 
safety standpoint. The way that we inspect animals to prevent animals 
with anything from BSE to a whole host of other diseases from getting 
into the food chain is through the process whereby the animals are 
slaughtered. When they show up at the slaughterhouses, that is where 
the veterinarians are on hand to inspect them and to make sure that 
animals that are not healthy do not get into the food chain. They are 
pulled off the line at that point in time and the public has that 
safety assurance.
  If we require that downed animals are euthanized on the farm and 
never get to that point in the processing system, we are going to drive 
this whole process literally underground.
  The problem that we have is that the animals will then be buried on 
the farm or disposed of in some other way, perhaps even put into the 
food chain illegitimately, because that farmer has absolutely no 
incentive to do anything otherwise. It is a cost to them, and there is 
no compensation to them whatsoever.
  So if you have an animal that has BSE, and we certainly hope that 
that never occurs in this country, but if it does, we will never know 
it if this amendment passes because that animal will never get to the 
veterinarian to be inspected to determine whether or not it has that 
illness.
  Therefore, this is a very, very bad idea. The humane thing to do for 
the animal, to have it euthanized at a place in the process where the 
veterinarians are on hand and can properly inspect it, is the way to go 
here. It is very important that when animals are downed we find out why 
they are downed. It might simply be a dislocated hip or something else 
that is no danger to human consumption, but if it is an animal that has 
a serious disease, we want to know if that animal has spread that 
disease to other animals in the area, whether other animals on that 
farm have the same problem.

                              {time}  1500

  If they never get to the veterinarian, we will never find that out; 
and, therefore, this will become a very serious human health problem if 
we adopt this amendment.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman makes a very, very 
important point. Unfortunately, he refers to previous legislation that 
the gentleman and I discussed.
  What we are doing here is we are not preventing the animal from 
getting there. We are preventing it from entering the food supply so 
people do not eat these crippled, diseased, pathetic animals as part of 
their hamburger or steak that they unwittingly buy at the supermarket. 
This just prevents the use of any funds from approving this animal from 
entering the food supply. It does not prevent the animal from being 
tested. It does not prevent the animal from being researched.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman's point does not 
cure the problem. And the reason it does not is that there is still a 
lack of incentive for that farmer to ship that animal to the 
veterinarian if he knows before it ever gets on his truck that he will 
not be able to get any compensation for it, any certification for it no 
matter what is wrong with the animal.
  As I indicated, if the animal simply has a dislocated hip or some 
other ailment that does not make the animal unsound for human 
consumption, then the farmer has absolutely no incentive whatsoever to 
ever get it to the slaughter house.

[[Page 17876]]


  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the distinguished ranking member 
of the authorizing committee.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time. I will be glad to yield to my friend from New York at any time on 
the point, but I think some of the points the gentleman from Virginia 
(Chairman Goodlatte) made need to be reemphasized.
  Existing statutes and regulations are sufficient to address the issue 
of preventing conscious, nonambulatory livestock from being inhumanely 
handled prior to slaughter.
  Now, there are differences of opinion as to what is ``inhumanely 
handled,'' and I respect those who have a different opinion than I 
have. Now, Federal and State veterinarians at slaughter establishments 
are best capable of identifying and segregating suspect animals from 
entering the food chain. FSIS personnel verify that disabled livestock 
handling procedures are carried out to ensure that nonambulatory 
animals are set apart and humanely slaughtered. That is what the 
chairman was pointing out will no longer happen if the gentleman's 
amendment is passed.
  In accordance with the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry 
Products Inspection Act, FSIS inspectors conduct anti-mortem inspection 
of livestock. Unconscious, disabled livestock cannot receive anti-
mortem inspection and must be condemned and disposed of in accordance 
with FSIS regulations and the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. Non-
ambulatory, disabled livestock that have not received anti-mortem 
inspection and cannot be humanely moved must be humanely condemned 
before they may be transported from the slaughter establishment's 
premises.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I should point out that the gentleman, 
who is a distinguished leader and authority in this area and someone 
for whom I have the greatest respect, is absolutely right. However, 
what we are dealing here with is an amendment that does not disrupt 
this process whatsoever. All of those things can and should take place 
from the time the animal is grazing to the time it is in the yard to 
the time it is being shipped and even prior to slaughter.
  The only thing that we prevent is the animal from being consumed by 
the American public. Every single one of us has constituents that eat 
meat. Some of us have the majority of our constituents. And the 
American people, 0 percent of them say they will not eat the product of 
a downed animal such as this.
  Mr. STENHOLM. And that sick animal will never find its way into the 
food chain under the current law that we are enforcing today.
  BSE was talked about. It is extremely critical that we do not create 
a situation in which downed animals which have very good food value, 
simply because they may have had a dislocated hip or a broken leg still 
have food value, not be discouraged from coming to the marketplace, 
which is exactly what the gentleman intends to do; and I respect his 
desire for doing that. But in the handling of livestock, it is 
extremely important that livestock continue to be handled as we are 
doing it under FSIS, particularly with the BSE question.
  It is extremely important that BSE-suspect animals are tested; and, 
accordingly, right now USDA's aggressive BSE surveillance system 
targets these animals, the ones we are talking about for testing. 
During fiscal year 2001, USDA tested 5,272 head. In fiscal 2002, 19,990 
head, more than 40 times the internationally recognized standard for 
appropriate surveillance for a country that has never detected BSE 
within its borders.
  It is extremely important that the suspect animals get into the 
inspection system. But I fear because of those who believe that any 
animal that cannot walk should be immediately destroyed wherever it is, 
this will do some real harm potentially to the future of the very food 
safety issues that the gentleman is trying to correct.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman should know that we do not 
prevent the animal from being tested anywhere, including right up to 
the slaughter house. We do not deny funds for the testing of the 
animal. We want the animals to be tested. We want to make a 
determination as to where the animal came from if he does test positive 
for mad cow disease or any other kind of disease. What we are saying is 
that we are going to deny funds under this amendment to those animals, 
such as this one here, from entering the food chain and from being 
consumed by my constituents or your constituents.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Reclaiming my time, the chairman has been overly 
generous in sharing of his limited time with me.
  I repeat, the picture the gentleman is showing, that sick animal will 
never find its way into the food chain. Period.
  It does no service to this institution to continue to show that.
  This amendment would create a disincentive to producers. The 
gentleman does not understand the cattle business as many in this body 
do. I understand the sentiments in what you are trying to correct, but 
the amendment would have a totally different result.
  I thank the chairman for his generosity.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin). The gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Ackerman) has 12 minutes left.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  I rise in strong support of the amendment by my very dedicated 
colleague from New York. His amendment would prohibit for human 
consumption any meat or meat food product derived from a downed animal.
  I might say to my dear friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm), a recognized leader in agriculture, that the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture has already as part of its procedures adopted 
regulations that ban the purchase of meat from downed animals by its 
own procurement agencies. So let there be no mistake that our 
Department of Agriculture believes that it already has the authority to 
take that action internally.
  Let me also say that the Department has estimated that nationally 
about 190,000 animals every year get so sick that they are unable to 
stand or walk and they are dragged to slaughter facilities and many of 
them end up in our food supply. But only about 5 percent of those 
animals are tested for serious diseases such as mad cow disease.
  Now, many probably know that the recent mad cow found in Canada was a 
downed animal; that the president of the Alberta Beef Producers 
remarked about ``cows too sick to walk, too sick to stand have no 
business being part of the food system. This animal should have never 
left the farm.''
  A 2001 study from Germany found that downed animals were anywhere 
from 10 to 240 times more likely to test positive for BSE than were 
ambulatory cows. And we all agree, I think we all know, that downed 
cattle have a higher risk of having BSE, and we should not be sending 
these animals to slaughter where they may ultimately end up on 
somebody's dinner table.
  Farm Sanctuary used the Freedom of Information Act to analyze USDA 
slaughter house records for 938 facilities from 1999 through June 2001. 
They found 73 percent of downed animals passed for human consumption 
while 27 percent were condemned. But startlingly, among the downed 
animals approved for human consumption, included afflictions such as 
gangrene, malignant cancers and pneumonia. These were common.

[[Page 17877]]

  I think the heart of the gentleman from New York's (Mr. Ackerman) 
proposal is, why are we sending these animals that should be euthanized 
and disposed of to auction markets and slaughter houses where they will 
contaminate healthy animals and, indeed, human health?
  The August 2001 issue of ``Dairy Herd Management'' named downed 
animals as the most important area where the industry needs to clean up 
its act. So I want to rise in support of the Ackerman amendment. I 
think the gentleman is moving us all, moving the country toward a 
better standard, a higher standard. The USDA has already recognized 
that standard and adopted on its own meat procurement practices. I want 
to thank the gentleman for helping move America ahead. I think this 
amendment's consideration today will go a long way in helping to clean 
up this problem for the American people.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) 
has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 6 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the authorizing committee.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur) because she is responding to exactly the same amendment that 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) has informed us he has 
modified from provisions that he has offered earlier as well.
  The gentlewoman wants to keep the animals from ever being shipped to 
the slaughter house. The slaughter house is where the inspection takes 
place to determine whether or not the animal has BSE. So if the 
gentlewoman accomplishes her goal, she is defeating that purpose.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) has said he has modified 
his amendment so that only funds cannot be expended for the purpose of 
certifying the animal for processing. That has still the same problem. 
The farmer will have no incentive to get that animal to the place where 
the veterinarians are so that inspection can take place. If we had 
billions of dollars to have veterinarians go to every farm, maybe they 
could accomplish their goal; but we do not have that kind of money. The 
farmers do not have the money. They are not going to spend it. So they 
would be risking public health by refusing to have the process work the 
way it was designed. Have the animals go to the slaughter house, be 
inspected.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me respond, first to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), my 
good friend, I may not be in the cattle business; but I can tell a good 
steak when I see one. This does not a good steak make, and that is 
exactly the point.
  And in answer to both questions to both the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm) and the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goodlatte), there is a greater picture that some might argue about 
testing anywhere along the process and euthanizing the animal prior to 
reaching the marketplace. That is all well and good, and we could argue 
those points; but that is not what this amendment is all about. This 
amendment does not prevent any of that from happening.
  This specific amendment does not touch any of the testing procedures. 
We want the animals tested. There are those who even have a greater 
picture; and they would say, let us not eat meat at all. That is not 
the purpose of this gentleman, and that is not the purpose of this 
amendment.
  This amendment says after you go through all of these processes and 
all of these wonderful things that are in place right now, why 
jeopardize it all for the sake of making a few bucks and jeopardize the 
entire cattle industry, a major American industry, for the sake of 
making a few bucks off a couple of crippled animals, less than .63 
percent of the entire population. It makes no sense.
  One mad cow has closed them down in Canada. Do we want that to happen 
in the United States?
  There is a humanitarian issue here for those of us who appreciate the 
inhumane treatment of animals, and there is a public-safety issue. And 
if nothing else, for goodness sake, look at the public-safety issue and 
look at what happened to Canada. Granted, we do a little bit better 
job, we think; but one mad cow is all it will take to shut down our 
industry.

                              {time}  1515

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ACKERMAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  I will not use the full time. I just wanted to say to my good friend 
from Virginia, the chairman of the authorizing committee, that the 
normal way, place the animal would be downed would be at the 
slaughterhouse anyway.
  The point we are trying to make is do not put it in the food chain. 
That is the heart of the gentleman from New York's (Mr. Ackerman) 
amendment which he has not changed. So I just wanted to clarify that, 
and I also am concerned that at that slaughter facility that that 
diseased animal not contaminate the other animals. So there is a 
tremendous burden on that slaughterhouse, but the point of the 
gentleman from New York's (Mr. Ackerman) argument and amendment is do 
not put that sick animal in the food chain.
  I support his amendment, and I thank the gentleman for offering it.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say that I greatly appreciate the 
points that the authorizers have made today in opposition to this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin). The gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Ackerman) has 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ACKERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I think it is imperative that we distinguish between sick animals and 
downer animals. There is a big difference, and I think the author of 
the amendment and some of the arguments made, including by my good 
friend from Ohio, is tending to mix up downers and sick.
  We all agree sick animals have no place in our food chain, period; 
and I would submit under current law that is occurring 99.9999 percent 
of the time. No one can be perfect.
  On the question of BSE, I worry about us continuing to be able to 
reassure the American public since in 2002 we tested 19,990 cattle, 40 
times the international standard, but of those 19,990, 14,000 were 
downer animals. It is critical that we continue to look at downers to 
make sure they are not sick and remove them from the food chain, but 
when we read the gentleman's amendment today, I really respectfully say 
it would create a disincentive for producers to send downers to market.
  We agree with the basic statement of keeping the animals out of the 
food chain that are sick. It is a question of how we best do it. 
Therefore, I respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment in the 
belief that it will not accomplish what we all agree we need to do, and 
that is keep sick animals out but allow downer animals that can be 
humanely consumed to continue to be presented so we can make that 
determination as to whether they are sick or consumable.

[[Page 17878]]


  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
gentleman's sentiments and how articulately he presents them. We have a 
great deal of sympathy with what he is trying to accomplish, and one of 
the things the industry is trying to accomplish is to squeeze every 
nickel out of every head of cattle regardless of whether it is 
ambulatory, nonambulatory or anything else. There should be a 
disincentive for people bringing animals that are sick or diseased or 
nonambulatory to the market for the sake of making a couple of dollars 
on \1/2\ of 1 percent of the entire cattle industry in America.
  The fact that we do 40 times more testing and a better job than the 
average in the world, I am not impressed by that argument that we do 
better than places like Saudi Arabia and the Sudan and other places 
which bolster our numbers in how good we are.
  Take a look at Canada. They do 40 percent better than the rest of the 
world, also. It took one mad cow who was a downed animal to shut down 
the entire industry. The industry here needs to be saved from itself. 
For the sake of that \1/2\ of 1 percent, they are jeopardizing their 
entire business.
  The humane aspect of this, I do not want to hold these pictures up 
continuously for the rest of this debate nor shall I, but the point is, 
the pictures are troubling. They are disturbing. Nobody likes to look 
at that. But if we think we go to the supermarket and buy some chopped 
meat and our own hamburger out of meat that McDonald's would not touch, 
out of meat that Wendy's would not touch, out of meat that Burger King 
would have no part of, out of meat that the USDA says, my goodness, 
keep this off the plates and tables of our schoolchildren as they have 
their lunches, it is unfair, it is unsafe, that the industry would say 
let us sneak this in and have these animals be put up for sale for the 
unsuspecting American public.
  According to a Zogby poll, four out of every five Americans have said 
they would not touch this meat if they knew it came from a downed 
animal, but they do not know that it came from a downed animal, Mr. 
Chairman.
  What we are doing here with this amendment is we are saying that the 
animal can be tested on the farm, it can be tested where it falls, it 
can be tested when it is in transit, it can be tested in the 
stockyards, it can be tested right up to the point of slaughter, do all 
the testing, make the determination, keep the statistics, but do not 
then put it into the food supply for the American people. Food safety 
demands better, and humanity to animals demands better.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ACKERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, just a very important point, I 
think bovine spongiform encephalitis, BSE, has never been found in the 
United States. We have the most strict meat inspection in the world, 
and if we pass this resolution the danger is that we complicate the 
inspection of those downed animals. Downed animals in this country do 
not go into the human food chain without a thorough health safety 
investigation.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his remarks.
  We are not compromising the testing system at all. Test to your 
heart's content. Test and retest and double test. We agree with that. 
But, in the end, after all the tests, do not subject the American 
people to eating these downed animals.
  On the gentleman's second point, that in the history of this country 
we have never found mad cow disease, I just want to point out that 
until one mad cow, who was a downed animal, came along, Canada had 
never found a mad cow in their country either. Look what has happened 
to them. Do not let it happen here in the name of food safety. In the 
name of the humane treatment of animals, do not allow that to happen 
here.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Ackerman-LaTourette Amendment which would end the sale of ``downed 
animal meat'' for human consumption. Simply put, this Amendment would 
take livestock that is too diseased, too weak, or too injured to even 
stand on its own feet out of our food chain.
  American families do not want to put downed animal meat products on 
their dinner tables, and they do not want to worry about whether the 
meat products purchased from a restaurant contains meat from downed 
animals. As a matter of fact, new animal welfare standards followed by 
burger-giants McDonald's, Burger King, and Wendy's have ended the 
purchase of meat from downed animals in their food products. I applaud 
these moves and America's consumers applaud them as well.
  Common sense, as well as scientific data, says that the meat taken 
from a downed animal is unfit for human consumption--its risk of 
bacterial contamination and other diseases is much much higher than the 
meat taken from a healthy animal. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 
records show that downed animals are often afflicted with gangrene, 
malignant lymphoma, pneumonia, and other serious illnesses. According 
to the Food and Drug Administration downed animals are responsible for 
half of the drug residue found in meat because these animals are often 
very sick animals, and therefore, are often receiving a variety of drug 
treatments. Why would anyone want to take a chance and eat this meat?
  Not only would this legislation remove tainted meat from the American 
marketplace, it would help improve the treatment of animals at auctions 
and slaughterhouses. Most downed animals are old dairy cows, crippled 
veal calves, and sometimes injured beef cattle. These downed animals, 
too weak to stand up on their own, are often shocked with electricity, 
moved with bulldozers, kicked and dragged, all in the effort to move 
them along the assembly lines to be slaughtered.
  Mr. Chairman, our Nation has made great strides in food processing 
and food production over many years. We've come a long way since the 
publication of Upton Sinclair's famous century-old work, ``The 
Jungle.'' But there's still a lot of needless cruelty that goes on in 
these places. Upton Sinclair wrote back then that the animals were 
strung up one by one in a ``cold-blooded, impersonal way, without a 
pretense of apology.'' This still occurs today.
  For instance, cows with broken legs are often left for hours or even 
days without food and water, let alone veterinary care. There is no 
excuse for this cruel and inhumane treatment in a civilized society. 
For the sake of our society, our animals, and those who eat meat 
products, the practice of slaughtering and consuming downed animals 
must be brought to an end.
  Americans rightly do not want to eat meat from downed animals nor do 
they want to see downed animals cruelly treated the way they are at our 
slaughterhouses and animal auctions. Five months after the publication 
of ``The Jungle,'' President Theodore Roosevelt and Congress took 
action by passing the first ``Pure Food and Drug Act'' and the first 
``Meat Inspection Act.''
  Mr. Chairman, Congress needs to act again. Americans want animals to 
be treated properly, and they want their food to be safe. I urge 
Members to support and vote for the Ackerman-LaTourette amendment.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, as Co-Chair of the Congressional Friends of 
Animals Caucus I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Ackerman 
Downed Animal Amendment.
  Animals too weak, from sickness or injury, to stand or walk are 
routinely pushed, kicked, dragged, and prodded with electric shocks at 
auctions and intermediate markets, in an effort to move them to 
slaughter.
  There is no excuse for this unnecessary torment.
  The Ackerman amendment will protect these downed animals by 
discouraging their transport to livestock markets and requiring they be 
humanely euthanized.
  Some greedy individuals know livestock sold for human consumption 
will bring a higher price than livestock sold for other purposes. To 
them, the money is more important than the suffering of the animals. In 
moving these animals to auctions and other markets, these individuals 
display a cruel disregard for the animals. They also ignore the fact 
that meat from these animals may be unfit for consumption.
  Downed animals do not deserve this kind of cruel treatment, and 
consumers do not deserve to be subjected to the risk of buying 
contaminated meat products.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time having expired, the question is on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman).

[[Page 17879]]

  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. 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 New York (Mr. Ackerman) 
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. 
Goodlatte) having assumed the chair, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, 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. 2673) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, had come 
to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________