[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 17879-17881]
[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 Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
further 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.
  The motion was agreed to.

                              {time}  1525


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill, H.R. 2673, with Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole House rose 
earlier today, a request for a recorded vote on the amendment by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) had been postponed, and the bill 
was open for amendment through page 72, line 23.
  Pursuant to the order of the House today, no further amendment to the 
bill may be offered except pro forma amendments offered by the chairman 
or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their 
designees for the purpose of debate and
  An amendment by Ms. Kaptur regarding biofuels, which will be 
debatable for 20 minutes;
  An amendment by Ms. Kaptur regarding APHIS;
  An amendment by Ms. Kaptur regarding credit cards;
  An amendment by Ms. Kaptur regarding the Website of the Department of 
Agriculture;
  An amendment by Mr. Brown of Ohio regarding food safety, which shall 
be debatable for 20 minutes.
  Each such amendment may be offered only by the Member designated in 
this request, or a designee, shall not be subject to amendment, and 
shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the 
House or in the Committee of the Whole.
  Except as specified, each such amendment shall be debatable for 10 
minutes, and debate on each amendment shall be equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
  All points of order against each of the amendments shall be 
considered as reserved pending completion of debate thereon; and each 
of the amendments may be withdrawn by its proponent after debate 
thereon.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Kaptur

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

       Amendment offered by Ms. Kaptur:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
       Sec.   . None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this Act shall be expended to violate Public Law 
     105-264.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, we would accept the amendment.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank my good friend from Iowa for that, and I just for purposes of 
the Record wish to state that this amendment concerns the recent 
allegations that have been put forward about individuals at the 
Department of Agriculture misusing their Federal credit cards that they 
possess on behalf of the agency.

                              {time}  1530

  We look forward to working with the majority to ensure prompt 
prosecution and also actions being taken by the Department of 
Agriculture for us to monitor them as they move forward to make sure 
that this never happens again. I thank the gentleman for his support.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin). The question is on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Kaptur

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

       Amendment offered by Ms. Kaptur:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
       Sec.   . None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to issue a final rule in 
     Docket No. 02-

[[Page 17880]]

     06201, ``Cost-Sharing for Animal and Plant Health Emergency 
     Programs,'' 68 Fed. Reg. 40541-40553 (July 8, 2003).

  Ms. KAPTUR (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, we would accept the amendment of the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham). Just for 
purposes of the debate and the record, let us show that this amendment 
would prohibit the U.S. Department of Agriculture from finalizing a 
rule on cost sharing between the Federal Government and co-operators, 
our States, local governments and industry groups on the cost of 
responding to animal or pest emergencies that threaten U.S. 
agriculture. We believe this to be a Federal responsibility.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Kaptur

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

       Amendment offered by Ms. Kaptur:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
       ``Sec.   . No funds appropriated or made available by this 
     Act may be used to identify by photograph on a department's 
     or agency's website any Member of the House of 
     Representatives or the Senate within 60 days before a federal 
     general election.''

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All points of order are reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, we would accept the amendment.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and appreciate the 
chairman's acceptance of 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 gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Kaptur

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

       Amendment offered by Ms. Kaptur:
         Under the heading ``common computing environment'', 
     insert after the dollar amount on page 3, line 9, the 
     following: ``(reduced by $20,000,000)''.
         Under the heading ``renewable energy program'', insert 
     after the dollar amount on page 43, line 4, the following: 
     ``(increased by $20,000,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All points of order are reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, we would be more than happy to accept the 
amendment, and we would like to expedite the process if we could.
  Ms. KAPTUR. The gentleman will accept this amendment on biofuels?
  Mr. LATHAM. If we could expedite the process.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would be more than pleased to accept the 
gentleman's acceptance and to say that there could be no more important 
action of this government than dragging the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture into the 21st century, and helping America to become energy 
self-sufficient at last.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any further amendments?
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Latham) for moving this bill along. I know there are other Members who 
may be on their way to the floor right now, and we wanted to allow a 
little time for that. But meanwhile, I wanted to say a word about the 
overall bill and again to express my deep disappointment that the 
overall level of this discretionary bill is about 5 percent below last 
year's appropriated levels.
  I come from a part of the country where we have experienced quite a 
bit of flooding. We know that later this year we are going to have some 
additional requests for disaster assistance. With the limited amount of 
funding in this bill and the cuts across various accounts, it is going 
to make it very difficult, barring a supplemental of some sort, to meet 
all of the requirements that are necessary.
  As we look toward Members asking us how good is this bill, I guess 
the bottom line on this bill is that it is not nearly good enough in 
view of the challenges that are facing agriculture today.
  We appreciate all of the Members who have come down here today to 
offer amendments. I think that every single one that was passed and 
awaits votes this afternoon has improved the bill. Those that deal with 
downed animals, those that deal with the Office of Civil Rights, those 
that deal with our historically black colleges and Tuskegee Institute, 
those that deal with improving the U.S. Department of Agriculture's 
attention to biofuels production, all of these are improvements.
  We were very pleased to see the gentlewoman from Guam (Mr. Bordallo) 
come to the floor to talk about the insular territories and their very, 
very significant dependence on agriculture, and over time the actual 
ignorance by our government toward these critical areas to our country.
  If I might just say an additional word on the energy title, one of 
the reasons we were so concerned about the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture's inattention to new fuels production is that there is not 
a corner of rural America where this is not uppermost in people's 
minds. Whether it is biodiesel, whether it is ethanol, farmers can see 
the future. Many of them are inventing it. Without question, rural 
America holds at least a minimum of 20 percent of the potential to 
displace our overreliance on imported petroleum.
  The budget, however, that the administration presented to us was 
severely underfunded. Not only was the Department of Agriculture not 
encouraged to move into the 21st century in energy production, but, in 
fact, the Department of Energy's accounts that deal with energy 
production and renewable energies were reduced 28 percent in the area 
of biomass, for example. Members should imagine a future where our 
capability in producing soy diesel and ethanol is enhanced by the 
Government of the United States assisting our farmers to bring new 
energy products online. These can actually produce real value-added and 
real income to the farm families of our country in the form of new 
fuels. We could do nothing more important in the first half of this 
century, in my opinion in the first decade of this century, than 
helping to convert from the hydrocarbon age to the carbohydrate age.
  Today, over 3 million vehicles on our roads already use E-85, 
ethanol, made of 85 percent ethanol. Every one of these vehicles is 
made by our manufacturers. The problem is if you buy a vehicle and you 
take it to the service station, drivers cannot get the fuel in every 
State and in every location. You can get it in Iowa. You can get it in 
Minnesota. Try to get it in Ohio.
  The real question is how do we move this industry forward when we 
know

[[Page 17881]]

our farmers would rather produce to the market rather than produce to 
the mailboxes with subsidy payments. I am enjoying this opportunity to 
have the chairman of the authorizing committee sitting listening to 
this because I look for a great partnership between the Committee on 
Appropriations and the authorizing committee in the area of new fuels.
  It has been a real disappointment to watch the lethargy at the 
Department of Agriculture when energy futurists can see the potential 
in every account. Take a look at research. We have not even invented 
the plants yet that can give us the most Btus per ton. We are using 
existing technology to produce the fuels that we are processing today. 
But just in the research accounts, we are behind the times in getting 
the plants that would give us the most convertible sugars, the most 
Btus per ton.
  Take a look at how processing facilities are being built across the 
country, by farmers in places like the State of Minnesota. The State of 
Minnesota is such a leader; I believe she had the first ethanol plant 
in America. If we are going to have a national project for biofuels 
production, we should call it the Minnesota Project because they 
absolutely were first. Although when I was down in Iowa talking to 
farmers, they said yes, but Iowa farmers working in Minnesota actually 
accomplished it!
  My point is that some parts of America have seen the future. Farmers 
are using our waste products from the field, for example, and blending 
them rather than putting them in landfills or burning them heedlessly 
produces a Btu stream that we can process and then convert.
  I think that the record shows by January 2002, last year, there were 
well over 100 major fleets in our country that had implemented 
biodiesel programs, and the leading Federal agency for converting 
vehicles is not the Department of Agriculture. It is the U.S. Postal 
Service. I believe they have over 12,000 vehicles that use clean-
burning fuels.
  We look at the U.S. Air Force, Army, U.S. Department of Energy, NASA, 
State fleets in States like my own, Ohio, Iowa, Virginia, Missouri, 
Delaware and New Jersey, city buses in places like the Cincinnati 
metropolitan area and the bi-state area of St. Louis, and major public 
utility fleets such as Commonwealth Edison, Florida Power & Light, Duke 
Energy, Alabama Power and others.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Ms. Kaptur was allowed to proceed for 5 
additional minutes.)
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity this 
afternoon to plant the seeds of biofuels in the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture budget for the year 2004.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, last week during consideration of the 
Labor-HHS appropriations bill, I spoke of how this administration and 
this Congress are making a choice between tax cuts for the wealthiest 
Americans and other pressing priorities.
  As a member of the subcommittee, I know that the programs in this 
bill represent many of these vital priorities supporting our farmers, 
revitalizing our rural communities, and helping the most needy in our 
country meet their most basic nutritional needs, and safeguarding our 
food supply. Yet as a result of the budget allocation given to our 
subcommittee, the bill includes a nearly 5 percent decrease in funding 
for agriculture, America's leading domestic industry which brings 
approximately $2.1 billion into my State of Connecticut's economy and 
provides 50,000 jobs for Connecticut each year.
  One of the most critical things we do in this bill is ensure the 
safety of our Nation's food supply; 76 million Americans become sick 
and 5,000 people die every year from food-borne illness. At a time when 
there have been record amounts of recalls and ongoing concerns about 
USDA performance and the integrity of our food supply, this bill 
underfunds food inspection by $12 million.
  Last week we found out that imported meat inspections have gone down 
from 17 to 6 percent in the last year.

                              {time}  1545

  This bill is headed in the wrong direction.
  In addition, this bill prevents implementation of country-of-origin 
labeling for meat and meat products. Country-of-origin labeling gives 
people the information that they need to make an informed choice to 
protect the safety of their families. Thirty-five other countries we 
trade with, including Canada, Mexico and members of the European Union, 
already have a country-of-origin labeling system in place.
  And American families recognize the need for this labeling. People 
say that 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 decreasing, consumers deserve that 
right to know where their food is coming from. Given the record 56 
million pounds of recalled meat last year, again, that is 56 million 
pounds of recalled meat, 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.
  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 is coming from. I hope my 
colleagues will support the Rehberg-Hooley amendment to remove this 
provision from the bill.
  I am also concerned that the WIC program, which helps ensure that the 
nutritional needs of women and children are met, may not be funded 
sufficiently in this bill. That leaves no room for error. If the need 
increases, if food or infant formula prices increase, there will be no 
funds available to help those who depend the most on the program.
  Another priority is prescription drugs, which are increasing on 
average at a rate of 20 percent annually. The generic drugs program at 
FDA helps us address those concerns by speeding the approval of 
affordable drugs. Yet this bill underfunds that program by $5 million, 
in addition to underfunding the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act 
and the patient safety and adverse reporting initiative. All are 
critically important to ensuring the health and safety of every 
American.
  Mr. Chairman, budgets reveal priorities. They reveal values. This 
bill includes agencies and programs charged with some of our most 
important responsibilities, many of which protect and oversee the 
public health. Now is not the time to choose tax cuts for the wealthy 
over these vital priorities. We must do better. Failure is not an 
option.
  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.

                          ____________________