[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 24195-24201]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  0915
    WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2744, 
   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 520 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 520

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 2744) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and 
     for other purposes. All points of order against the 
     conference report and against its consideration are waived. 
     The conference report shall be considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Putnam) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 520 is a rule providing for 
consideration of the conference report on H.R. 2744, making 
appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2006.
  According to the rule, all points of order against the conference 
report and against its consideration are waived. The conference report 
shall be considered as read.
  Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to present for consideration the rule 
for the conference report for agriculture appropriations for fiscal 
year 2006. I would like to commend Chairman Bonilla, Chairman Lewis, 
and the entire Appropriations Committee for their hard work this year. 
The congressional budget is an important tool of Congress, allowing us 
to establish our priorities for the coming fiscal year.
  The agriculture appropriations subcommittee has reported out a bill 
that provides important resources to ensure that our Nation's farmers 
and ranchers remain competitive in the 21st century. The legislation 
enhances our ability to safeguard our food supply and addresses the 
nutritional needs of children and the most disadvantaged in our 
country. The bill also works to maintain and build fiscal discipline.
  In total, the bill provides $17.1 billion in discretionary resources. 
This level represents an increase of $258 million, only 1\1/2\ percent 
over the fiscal year 2005-enacted level.
  The bill continues our commitment to protecting human health and 
safety. In an effort to combat harmful pests and disease that threaten 
American agriculture, the Food Safety and Inspection Service is 
increased by $20 million over last year for a total of $838 million, an 
increase of $127 million above the President's request. And APHIS, the 
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, activities are funded at $7 
million above last year for a total of $820 million.
  I am pleased that the conference report fulfills our commitments to 
important food and nutrition programs. Child nutrition programs are 
funded at $12.7 billion, $879 million above last year and $245 million 
above the President's request. To provide quality nutrition for Women, 
Infants, and Children, the WIC program is funded at $5.3 billion, $22 
million more than last year.
  In addition, the conference report supports American farmers, 
ranchers, and rural areas. The Farm Service Agency salaries and 
expenses are funded at the President's request of $1 billion, allowing 
the continued delivery of farm and disaster programs. To unlock much-
needed advances in agricultural research and allow American farmers to 
have the tools necessary to continue to produce a safe and wholesome, 
affordable food supply, the Agricultural Research Service is funded at 
$1.266 billion.
  USDA's Conservation Observations are increased by $72 million over 
the President's request, bringing 2006 funding to $840 million, an 
increase over last year. This will allow farmers and ranchers to 
achieve important conservation and environment goals, recognizing that 
farmers and ranchers are the original environmentalists.
  This appropriations bill is an example of how Congress can attain 
fiscal discipline and still fund our necessary programs. The conference 
report on H.R. 2744 funds programs over the President's budget request, 
increasing funding in strategic areas, while maintaining fiscal 
discipline. I am impressed with the work of the conferees, and I am 
certain the appropriations process this year will serve as a model of 
how we can achieve responsible and responsive funding simultaneously.
  Mr. Speaker, I represent a congressional district in Florida that is 
among the top in the Nation in production of certain agricultural 
goods. And I want to personally thank Chairman Bonilla and Chairman 
Lewis and the agriculture appropriations subcommittee staff for their 
ongoing commitment to the needs of Florida's agriculture, which has 
been ravaged now by a number of hurricanes over the past 2 years and a 
number of invasive plants, pests, and diseases.
  I particularly thank Chairman Bonilla for his understanding and 
diligence in fighting the spread of citrus canker in the groves of my 
State. I know that the people of Florida deeply appreciate the 
subcommittee's tireless efforts to assist our State's agriculture 
economy.
  I urge Members to support the rule and the underlying conference 
report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Putnam) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me begin by commending committee Chairman Lewis and 
subcommittee Chairman Bonilla as well as committee Ranking Member Obey 
and subcommittee Ranking Member DeLauro for bringing a freestanding 
fiscal year 2006 agriculture appropriations conference report to the 
floor today.
  For the first time in several years, the agriculture appropriations 
conference report has not been folded into an omnibus bill and is 
allowed to be voted on up or down on its own merits. Until this year, 
that has been a rare accomplishment, and I believe our distinguished 
colleagues deserve to be commended for their efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, while I will support the conference report, I do have 
some concerns with the final conference report and with the process by 
which it has been completed; and I am going to let some of the others 
who are on the Appropriations Committee talk about that in more detail. 
But, apparently, there were serious policy disagreements between the 
House and the Senate that were magically resolved without any vote by 
the conferees. There are examples of identical provisions, passed in 
both bodies, being changed in the conference committee even though 
House rules preclude such provisions from being rewritten. I think we 
can do much better than that, Mr. Speaker.
  I also have some policy concerns with this conference report. One 
provision that was dropped in the conference had to do with 
privatization of the administering of the food stamp program. Senator 
Harkin and others in the Senate had some serious concerns with a 
proposal in Texas to allow Accenture to administer the State's food 
stamp program. Their concerns led to the inclusion of a provision 
preventing such privatization. Senator Harkin attempted to modify that 
provision for

[[Page 24196]]

inclusion in the final conference report, but his effort was rejected. 
Ultimately, the provision was dropped altogether from the conference 
report.
  I am very concerned about a wholesale change like this in the food 
stamp program. The conference report actually allows every State to 
privatize their food stamp programs. We may find out that this is a 
good thing, but I do not believe we should rush into such a big change 
without testing it first in a few pilot programs. The food stamp 
program is one of the best run Federal and State programs and should 
not be subjected to such a wholesale change.
  Another provision that I am concerned about is the country of origin 
labeling provision. The 2002 farm bill set a date certain for country 
of origin labeling for various meat, poultry, and produce products. I 
was disappointed by past efforts that have delayed portions of this 
provision. This conference report delays enactment of country of origin 
labeling until 2008, and it is time to let the country of origin 
labeling provisions take effect like the Congress intended when it 
passed the 2002 farm bill.
  I am also concerned about other provisions dealing with organic 
produce, the way the Food and Drug Advisory Panel is regulated, and 
horse slaughter. The horse slaughter provisions are extremely 
troubling, primarily because majorities in both the House and Senate 
voted for amendments banning the slaughter of horses for human 
consumption. This provision should not have been rewritten in 
conference, and I am disappointed with the conference committee's 
actions on all three of these issues.
  However, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not highlight, in my 
opinion, one of the most positive aspects of this conference report. As 
many of my colleagues know, I am a strong supporter of the George 
McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for Education and Child 
Nutrition Program. I am pleased that President Bush requested $100 
million in his fiscal year 2006 budget, and I am pleased this 
conference report funds the McGovern-Dole program at $100 million. It 
is still far less than I believe we should be funding it; but, 
nevertheless, it is an increase over last year's level.
  Modeled after the U.S. school breakfast and lunch programs, the 
McGovern-Dole program is successful, it is well run, and it is a 
popular program that provides food for children in school settings 
around the world. Named after former Senators George McGovern and Bob 
Dole, this program is operating around the world and has fed millions 
of children in countries like Afghanistan and Colombia and other 
developing countries.
  Mr. Speaker, it is not just I who supports this program. The 
Secretary of Agriculture, Mike Johanns, sent me a letter earlier this 
year expressing the administration's support for the program. 
Specifically, the Secretary mentions ``the positive results of 
increased enrollment, decline in absenteeism, improved concentration, 
energy, and attitudes toward learning; and infrastructure improvements 
. . .'' But beyond these, he mentions how important it is that 
countries are already graduating out of this program. In other words, 
some countries are getting ready to end their involvement in the 
McGovern-Dole program because they are now able to provide the school 
feeding programs themselves. They have become self-sustaining.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, Secretary Johanns notes how important the 
program is and how important proper funding is despite the challenges 
facing the Federal budget. I will insert this letter from Secretary 
Johanns into the Record at this point.

         U.S. Department of Agriculture,


                                      Office of the Secretary,

                                                   Washington, DC.
     Hon. James P. McGovern,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman McGovern: Thank you for the letter of 
     December 2, 2004, from you and your colleagues to President 
     George W. Bush, expressing your support for the McGovern-Dole 
     International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program 
     (FFE). The White House forwarded your letter to the 
     Department of Agriculture (USDA) for reply. We apologize for 
     the delay in responding.
       This Administration greatly appreciates your support for 
     this very successful program. USDA now has 5 years of 
     experience with FFE and its predecessor, the Global Food for 
     Education Initiative. These programs have reached over 7 
     million beneficiaries and provided close to 1.3 million tons 
     of agricultural commodities as well as other types of 
     assistance to schools and communities. The positive results 
     include increased school enrollment, especially among girls; 
     declines in absenteeism; improved concentration, energy, and 
     attitudes toward learning; and infrastructure improvements, 
     including classrooms, kitchens, storage facilities, water 
     systems, latrines, and playgrounds.
       We are especially gratified that FFE has resulted in 
     greater local commitment to school feeding activities. In 
     many cases, FFE activities have been so succcssful that local 
     support for school feeding is expanding to the point that FFE 
     assistance can shortly be ended. Examples of these 
     ``graduating'' countries are Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Moldova and 
     Vietnam. We will continue to allocate some FFE resources to 
     these countries this year as we expand the benefits of FFE by 
     implementing programs in additional countries. Additionally, 
     the success of FFE has resulted in other donors becoming 
     involved in school feeding programs. These other donors 
     include the European Union, the German Agency for Technical 
     Cooperation, the Japanese Development Agency, Canada, and the 
     WorId Health Organization.
       We agree that funding for FFE should be expanded in fiscal 
     year (FY) 2006. While the Administration is making a 
     concerted effort to cut the budget deficit, we have requested 
     $100 million in appropriated funding for FFE in FY 2006, 
     which is double the funding for the program in FY 2004 and an 
     increase of 15 percent compared to FY 2005.
       Thank you again for writing to support this important 
     program. We look forward to continuing to work with you to 
     improve USDA's overseas food aid programs. A similar letter 
     has been sent to each of your colleagues.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Mike Johanns,
                                                        Secretary.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I believe the world community, and that 
includes the United States, can do better in combating hunger in the 
world. There are 850 million hungry people in the world; 300 million 
are children. Of those 300 million, half of them do not go to school; 
and of those who do not go to school, they are mostly girls. We need to 
change that reality, and the McGovern-Dole program helps mightily 
toward changing that reality. The fact is we cannot effectively combat 
disease and overpopulation and illiteracy or deal effectively with 
sustainability in developing countries if we do not commit ourselves to 
universal education; and the way we get to universal education, in 
large part, is through school feeding programs.
  I would also argue that the McGovern-Dole program does some other 
important things. It gives people around the world who otherwise would 
not have any hope, it gives them hope. It gives them a chance to 
believe that their children will get an education and actually succeed 
in the world. It gives countries the ability to look forward to truly 
develop in a way where they can have economies that can support their 
people. I also think it goes a long way in improving the image of the 
United States around the world at a time when I think we desperately 
need to improve our image, because I believe that this is the kind of 
program that a majority of people, Republicans and Democrats, people 
from red States and blue States, all think is what America stands for. 
We are about helping people. We are about giving people a chance.
  Let me finally say, Mr. Speaker, that I hope at some point the 
Republican leadership and the Democratic leadership in this House can 
come together and focus more acutely and more effectively on the issue 
of hunger here at home in the United States and around the world. There 
are some problems that we cannot solve in my lifetime, but hunger is 
not one of them. We can do so much better. We have the resources. We 
have the infrastructure. What we need is the political will, and that 
is my hope.
  I want to thank Chairman Lewis, Chairman Bonilla, Ranking Member 
Obey, and Ranking Member DeLauro, along with subcommittee members 
Emerson and Kaptur, who are strong

[[Page 24197]]

supporters of the McGovern-Dole program, for their hard work and for 
increasing funding in this program to $100 million for fiscal year 
2006. I truly appreciate their efforts. Again, despite some of my 
concerns with the process and a few policy matters, I think overall 
this is a good conference report. I will support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from 
Massachusetts comments and certainly share his concern about the need 
to deal with world hunger problems.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Pence), a gentleman who represents a group of people who are doing 
their own part to fight that. He represents the breadbasket of the 
world.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me this time.
  Today, the House is set to consider the fiscal year 2006 agriculture 
appropriations conference report, a bill of some $17 billion in scope. 
But according to the Congressional Budget Office, Mr. Speaker, the bill 
violates the budget resolution by $199 million over the budget.

                              {time}  0930

  The rule we are debating at this very moment is asking us to waive a 
budget point of order to enforce the budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot do that. These are difficult times in which we 
live. The American people are looking to this Congress to make the hard 
choices, to put our fiscal house in order. Today, as we consider this 
conference report, for my part I will neither be able to vote yes for 
this rule, but neither am I willing to vote no. The only reason why I 
will vote ``present'' and urge other conservative colleagues, 
Republicans and Democrats, to do likewise is simply out of a sense of 
confidence in the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.
  I have met in recent days and recent hours with Chairman Jerry Lewis 
of the House Appropriations Committee. The only reason I am not 
prepared to vote no on this rule is because I believe that almost 
solely by virtue of the integrity and commitment of Chairman Jerry 
Lewis, I believe that before we adjourn this year, we will eventually 
be back to the $843 billion number that this Congress labored to adopt 
as our budget for discretionary spending, back when the budget of the 
House was adopted last March. So I believe that at the end of the day, 
Chairman Jerry Lewis will bring these numbers in line.
  But as was the case with the legislative branch conference report 
that was $85 million over the House budget, the Interior conference 
report which was $52 million over the budget, this Agriculture 
appropriations conference report is over the budget by $199 million. 
And I believe it is imperative that while we recognize this chairman's 
effort at the end of the day, at the end of this year to square this 
budget up, that largely due to our colleagues in the Senate, this bill 
exceeds the House budget.
  It also, as I said in a letter to Chairman Dreier last night, it 
violates the House rules in one other regard. Under rule XXI, paragraph 
6, legislation is not to be considered in order where there is a 
designation or redesignation of a public work in honor of an 
individual, and this legislation does that, naming a public structure 
after a sitting Member of the Senate in direct violation of the House 
rules.
  This bill violates the House budget that we adopted in March, this 
bill violates the House rules, and for that reason I will vote 
``present'' on this rule and urge my colleagues to do likewise.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman who just spoke from 
Indiana, I appreciate the fact that he is sensitive to when House rules 
are violated. I just wish he would join with us when the House rules 
are violated routinely on a number of rules that deal with a number of 
important pieces of legislation.
  I would also say, too, this legislation, I think, is good for a whole 
bunch of reasons, but one of the reasons is because it provides money 
for food stamps, WIC and feeding programs. Feeding people is, I think, 
an important issue, and especially in the aftermath of the hurricanes 
that have hit the gulf coast. There are a lot more people that are 
going to need to take advantage of some of the programs that are 
encompassed in this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by telling 
you how impressed I am with the firm statement of principle apparently 
by the Republican Study Committee. Confronted with an appropriations 
bill that they believe wrecks the budget, violates the House rules, 
they are calling for a firm and principled ``present'' on the rule. 
That is an inspirational example of how to combat wrongdoing. It does 
give new meaning to the faith-based initiative. Apparently the 
gentleman from Indiana thinks this is a terrible rule and a bad bill, 
but because he has faith that by some process, apparently others will 
be excluded, that the chairman of the committee will fix it, he will 
refrain from voting against it.
  I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Connecticut, 
who fights very hard for the most important parts of this bill, in my 
judgment, those which my colleague from Massachusetts alluded to, those 
which try to alleviate hunger, food stamps and international feeding 
programs, and I am pleased that they have survived the onslaught as 
well as they have. I hope that when we get to the reconciliation 
process, her efforts and the efforts of others who care about these 
things will succeed.
  There is one aspect of the feeding program, however, where I find 
myself in sharp disagreement with the conference report, and at this 
point I would include for the record a speech given to the Kansas City 
Export Food Aid Conference in May by USAID Administrator Natsios.

     [From the Kansas City Export Food Aid Conference, May 3, 2005]

                     The Local Purchase Initiative

     (Remarks by Andrew S. Natsios, Administrator, U.S. Agency for 
                       International Development)

       I am very pleased to be here today to discuss U.S. food 
     aid--what we have done right in the past and what we can do 
     to improve how we conduct our food aid programs in light of 
     new challenges since September 11, 2001.
       Last year when I was here, I talked about the success of 
     U.S. food aid over the past 50 years and how we have assisted 
     more than 3 billion people through P.L. 480 programs. Over 
     the past twelve months, many of you have continued to work 
     with people in Sri Lanka and Indonesia whose lives were 
     devastated as a result of the Tsunami as well as people in 
     Sudan, Ethiopia and Eritrea who have been hit hard by the 
     equally overwhelming consequences of conflict and drought. In 
     addition, many of your organizations contribute to long term 
     development programs in places like Honduras and Bangladesh 
     that strengthen communities so that when they face sudden or 
     slow onset disasters, they are prepared and better able to 
     cope with the setbacks. You have continued to work tirelessly 
     to save and improve people's lives. I appreciate the 
     partnerships we have created together to address food 
     insecurity.
       I want to take a few minutes now to talk about changes in 
     the world over the past few years and how the change has 
     affected our ability to meet food aid needs. Our Agency, and 
     particularly our food programs now operate in an environment 
     characterized by increased frequency and severity of natural 
     and manmade disasters, terrorism, instability, the HIV/AIDS 
     pandemic, corruption, poor governance and conflict which has 
     led to increased population displacement.
       The United States Government is facing increasing demands 
     on its diplomatic, military and humanitarian resources. And 
     the resources are limited. But not responding is not an 
     option, so we prioritize and stretch the dollars to meet as 
     many needs as possible as efficiently as possible.
       At the same time, the World Trade Organization continues 
     its debate on food aid issues in the context of the current 
     agricultural trade negotiations. Some of the other members 
     would like to do away with in-kind food aid such as the P.L. 
     480 Title II program. The U.S. has made two presentations at 
     the WTO in Geneva on U.S. food aid policies and programs. At 
     these presentations and in the negotiations we keep reminding 
     member states, and relevant international organizations that 
     we must come to an agreement

[[Page 24198]]

     that will ensure (1) that we maintain adequate food aid 
     levels to meet global needs; (2) that food aid continues to 
     be an internationally accepted form of assistance when it 
     targets food insecure populations; and (3) that we minimize 
     any trade distortions. I won't belabor this any further as I 
     know that there will be a more in-depth discussion on trade 
     issues over the next few days. Let me just say that we will 
     continue to try to ensure that the WTO Doha Development Round 
     does not restrict in-kind food aid. If food aid is unduly 
     restricted, inhibit development, increase food insecurity and 
     create instability in developing countries.
       In President Bush's 2002 National Security Strategy, he 
     acknowledged the importance of fighting poverty abroad when 
     he defined the three pillars of our foreign policy as 
     Defense, Diplomacy and Development. Recognizing that we 
     cannot address all of today's problems using our military or 
     diplomatic resources, he emphasized that what we do as 
     development practitioners can also serve to protect vital 
     American national interests.
       In January of this year, USAID released a paper focusing 
     attention on failing, failed and recovering states known as 
     the Fragile States Strategy. The strategy provides a focal 
     point for the USAID Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and 
     Humanitarian assistance in defining its priorities and in 
     carrying out its humanitarian assistance role. The strategy 
     promotes four basic objectives for carrying out work in 
     fragile, failed and failing states which are to: (1) improve 
     monitoring and analysis; (2) ensure that priorities respond 
     to realities on the ground; (3) focus programs on the source 
     of the fragility or weakness; and (4) create or use 
     streamlined operational procedures to support rapid and 
     effective response.
       Failed states are both the incubator and sanctuary for 
     terrorists. Where there is no effective national government 
     to control terrorist organizations, these groups will 
     flourish. It was no accident that Sudan, Somalia, and 
     Afghanistan served as the base of Al Qaeda training and 
     planning. As the National Security Strategy document so 
     succinctly puts it: ``America is now threatened less by 
     conquering states than by failing ones.'' We now know by 
     painful experience that we are not immune from the 
     consequences that arise from state failure on other 
     continents.
       Our underlying priorities, in working in fragile states, 
     are to increase stability, promote security, encourage reform 
     and build institutional capacity. This will address the 
     causes of fragility as opposed to simply targeting symptoms. 
     The President's 2006 budget proposes reforms which will give 
     USAID the programmatic tools to deal with fragile states.
       In crisis situations, strategic programming of food aid can 
     stabilize a fragile economy by supporting local farmers and 
     maintaining demand for the locally produced goods, despite 
     the low purchasing power of those requiring assistance. 
     Famines can be demand driven or supply driven. A supply 
     driven famine is caused by reduced food production and rising 
     prices. In this case, importing U.S. food to increase the 
     food supply would be an appropriate response. A demand driven 
     famine is caused by the collapse of family livelihoods and 
     the inability of families to access food, even where there is 
     adequate supply and low prices. In cases where the food 
     supply is adequate and prices stable, but where families 
     cannot afford to purchase the food, an appropriate response 
     would be to purchase what is available locally to assist the 
     food insecure rather than adding U.S. food to the local 
     supply which could depress local prices and further aggravate 
     the economy.
       As with all of our work in fragile countries, we need to 
     take a close look at all of our options when responding to 
     needs. The work is getting more rather than less arduous and 
     it is evident that we must expand the ways in which we 
     conduct our business. The old way of doing business is 
     insufficient to meet the mounting food needs in this new 
     environment given our limited dollars.
       Despite all that we are doing, and all that the rest of the 
     world is doing to win the war on hunger, the number of 
     chronically malnourished people in the world continues to 
     rise, now totaling more than 850 million people. And though 
     the prevalence of undernourishment has fallen in 30 
     developing countries since the early 1990s, poverty and 
     conflict have contributed to its growth elsewhere.
       In the past decade, and especially in the past several 
     years, conflict-related emergencies and natural disasters 
     have created global food needs beyond the capacity of the 
     U.S. and other donors to respond using the options currently 
     available to us. In specific situations, when food pipelines 
     break or when conflicts pause and we need to move food in 
     quickly to save lives, we need to be able to access food more 
     quickly.
       In his book on famine, Fred Cuny stated that ``the chances 
     of saving lives at the outset of a [relief] operation are 
     greatly reduced when food is imported. By the time it arrives 
     in the country and gets to people, many will have died.'' He 
     goes on to say that ``evidence suggests the massive food 
     shipments sent to Ethiopia in 1985 had little impact on the 
     outcome of the famine . . . and that by the time it arrived 
     in sufficient, steady quantities in the rural areas, the 
     death rate had peaked and was already declining.''
       Some of the starkest evidence we have of deaths directly 
     related to a slow food aid response took place in Gode, 
     Ethiopia, the epicenter of the 2000 famine there, which 
     threatened over 10 million people with starvation. While the 
     famine was eventually averted--the Centers for Disease 
     Control has estimated that in Gode, 20,000 deaths resulted 
     from the crisis in that region alone with an estimated 78,000 
     deaths in four other regions. Seventy-seven percent of the 
     deaths in Gode occurred before the major relief interventions 
     began in the summer of 2000 and more than half of the deaths 
     were of children under the age of five.
       One way to respond to the needs more quickly is to purchase 
     food locally, but this requires us to have access to cash. 
     When food emergencies are a function of localized drought, 
     conflict or crop failure from disease or locusts with food 
     available close-by, local purchase can be critical.
       USAID is searching for innovative ways to stretch its 
     dollars and meet the needs of the most vulnerable populations 
     with emergency and developmental food assistance. One way of 
     doing this is to provide cash which could be used to purchase 
     food in the country or region where an emergency is taking 
     place.
       For FY 2006, President Bush has taken the initiative to 
     provide this tool to USAID humanitarian officers and has put 
     a request into the FY 2006 budget asking that $300 million be 
     shifted out of P.L. 480 Title II and into the International 
     Disaster and Famine Assistance (IDFA) account to be used as 
     cash for meeting emergency food needs. Specifically, the 
     President stated in his budget that ``This funding will 
     permit USAID to provide food assistance in the most timely 
     and efficient manner to the most critical emergency food 
     crises. This assistance will be used in those instances where 
     the rapid use of cash assistance is critical to saving 
     lives.''
       One of the factors behind this request is the length of 
     time that it takes to ship food commodities from the United 
     States to an emergency. Shipping in-kind assistance from the 
     U.S. normally requires three or four months to arrive at an 
     emergency distribution point once it is ordered. Having the 
     option to purchase the food in the same country or region 
     where an emergency is happening would enable us to get food 
     to hungry people faster. It would save lives and would fill a 
     critical gap until U.S. commodities arrive at the site. In 
     addition to providing a faster option, local purchases of 
     food will, in many cases, save the dollars that would 
     otherwise have been spent on transportation costs, allowing 
     us to purchase additional food aid to feed more people.
       The primary purpose of the Title II program is to save 
     lives and having more flexibility in our programs to use cash 
     to buy food locally will save lives. The fact that U.S. 
     farmers and shippers are able to benefit from the Food for 
     Peace program is an important, but secondary benefit. It is 
     not the primary objective of the program. The primary 
     objective is to save lives.
       In responding to pending crises, USAID has limited options:
       We can order a shipment of U.S. commodities which can be 
     expected to arrive at the distribution site within 3 to 4 
     months of purchase.
       We can access food from pre-positioned U.S. commodity 
     stocks or swap commodities from other food pipelines. 
     However, the limited pre-positioned stocks are not always 
     adequate or suitable for every situation and increasingly 
     thin pipelines have lately rendered swaps infeasible.
       Within the past year, we have established a pre-position 
     warehouse in Dubai, UAE to store commodities until they are 
     needed in an emergency. While this is extremely useful, we 
     cannot always preposition the amount or appropriate mix of 
     commodities that would be needed in every emergency. Also, 
     pre-positioning will not solve every problem. For example, 
     currently Ethiopia is facing an unexpectedly severe food 
     crisis and while the current supplemental budget has a 
     sizable increase in food aid, it cannot be used to order food 
     until the President signs it. When this happens, we will need 
     to order the commodities in the U.S., ship them, and then 
     wait for them to arrive in Ethiopia several months from now. 
     Needless deaths will occur while we wait. If we had the 
     flexibility to purchase food locally, we could purchase the 
     commodities in or near Ethiopia once the legislation is 
     signed, getting the food to the people who need it months 
     sooner. This is not a hypothetical situation--it is taking 
     place as we speak.
       Another option that we have to meet emergencies is to 
     divert U.S. commodities headed to other programs on the high 
     seas. And while this has been done, it is an extremely costly 
     intervention. It means that another program will suffer, and 
     ultimately means less money for commodities.
       The ability to purchase food supplies in local or regional 
     markets would give us one more option for meeting critical 
     needs. While this will not always be viable, this flexibility 
     will make a difference in the reduction of human suffering.
       I want to be very clear that this requested change is not 
     an attack on the U.S. farmers or the U.S. maritime industry. 
     The contributions that many of you have made in feeding

[[Page 24199]]

      hungry people overseas is notable and will continue to be a 
     critical, basic component of how the U.S. conducts its 
     management of food aid. The Administration has no intention 
     of changing how the United States runs its food aid programs 
     in general. This is not the beginning of a push to make our 
     food aid program an all-cash program. I personally would 
     oppose any kind of proposal to make more than one quarter of 
     our food aid budget available for local purchase. The greater 
     portion of U.S. food aid must continue to be purchased in 
     American markets where the supply is assured for emergencies 
     where large volume is needed.
       One thing that I have been asked repeatedly is: How will we 
     sustain support on Capitol Hill for these humanitarian food 
     aid programs, if the benefits to the U.S. agricultural and 
     shipping industries are perceived to be decreased? The budget 
     for OFDA, the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, and the 
     Refugee Program budget have been as stable in funding as the 
     Food for Peace budget, and these two budgets contain no 
     guaranteed purchase of U.S. commodities. Americans, including 
     those who have been intimately involved in our food aid 
     programs in the past, will strongly support USAID's effort to 
     improve the U.S. food response to humanitarian emergencies by 
     making that response as flexible and effective as possible to 
     save more lives and reduce suffering. I believe that 
     compassion for those who are suffering is part of the moral 
     fabric of this society. This was evident to me in the massive 
     outpouring of private cash contributions to help the victims 
     of the Tsunami and I believe that it holds true here.
       Stretching our emergency resources further will also help 
     to protect our development programs from being tapped to meet 
     emergency needs.
       I know that many of you have questions about how we will 
     run this program and I will try to answer as many of them as 
     possible.
       The Administration has requested that the money be placed 
     in the International Disaster and Famine Account. This is the 
     emergency account managed by our Office of Foreign Disaster 
     Assistance. However, the $300 million designated to this 
     account for the purchase of food aid will be managed by the 
     Office of Food for Peace, which currently manages the Title 
     II food aid program. As Food for Peace currently has the 
     responsibility for and the expertise in managing food aid, 
     they are the appropriate group to administer this money. The 
     money, like current Title II money, will be programmed 
     primarily through NGOs and the World Food Program.
       One of the questions that I have been asked is: Is there 
     enough food available in local markets to meet our emergency 
     needs? Though local purchase will not support all of our food 
     aid initiatives, there is food available for purchase in 
     developing countries. In 2004 more than $680 million worth of 
     food aid was purchased from developing countries by WFP in 
     order to meet local food aid needs. Developing countries able 
     to supply food aid commodities have included (but are not 
     limited to) Indonesia, Pakistan, South Africa and Sudan. This 
     method not only provides food more quickly and more cheaply, 
     it also supports the local economy and helps improve the 
     livelihoods of poor farmers.
       We follow the principle of ``Do no Harm'' in local markets. 
     The $300 million will not all be used to purchase and program 
     food in a single country, but in a variety of countries, 
     reducing the impact on local markets. We also intend to apply 
     Title II legislated requirements such as Bellmon and Usual 
     Marketing Requirement, where local purchases are conducted to 
     ensure that there will be no displacement of commercial 
     sales, or negative impact on local markets.
       I have also been asked several times why we can't just use 
     our notwithstanding authority under Title II to make local 
     purchases. I have been told in no uncertain terms by our 
     USAID lawyers that we cannot use our notwithstanding 
     authority for local purchases. Title II authorizes the 
     donation of American agricultural commodities. 
     Notwithstanding authority was not intended for, nor can it be 
     used to create additional authority that would allow the 
     purchase of foreign commodities. The notwithstanding clause 
     can waive existing federal laws which slow down emergency 
     response, but it cannot be used to invent new authority not 
     now available under Title II. As it is currently written, 
     Title II can not be used to purchase commodities locally.
       We do not intend for this money to be used in purchasing 
     commodities from other developed nations. If food aid is not 
     available for local purchase under appropriate market 
     conditions in developing countries with some proximity to the 
     emergency need, the food aid will be purchased in the United 
     States.
       I want to close with another example of where this type of 
     program could be used effectively.
       In the past in southern Sudan, small farmers in the fertile 
     western farming areas have often produced small grain 
     surpluses, while hundreds of thousands of Sudanese in other 
     parts of the country have urgently needed food aid. If we 
     were able to strategically and carefully buy the surpluses to 
     meet food aid needs elsewhere in the same country, we would 
     end up sustaining and improving the lives of both groups. 
     Should signatories comply with the July Peace Accords, there 
     is a real possibility that agricultural output could return 
     to its former level and the region would once again act as an 
     important regional cereal supplier. However, if using donated 
     food commodities from the U.S. remains our only option, we 
     risk lowering demand for the local production and destroying 
     price incentives for the local farmers to improve their 
     production to meet future food aid needs.
       I would be happy to take your questions.

  Mr. Speaker, the issue was this. We give food aid, and that is 
generous. Under the rules that will be maintained by this bill, the aid 
can only be given in kind; that is, we ship the actual physical food. 
That has obvious advantages in that it helps the American farmer while 
it helps those in need. Particularly for nonemergency food aid, that is 
an entirely legitimate way to go. In some emergency situations, maybe 
in many, it is the right way to go.
  The problem is under current law, the American foreign aid 
administrators are not allowed to use any of this food aid by buying 
the food near where the emergency happens. That is one reason why a 
large part of the food aid is taken up in transportation costs. I 
understand there are maritime interests like that, but that is not an 
appropriate way, it seems to me, to go about trying to help them.
  Inevitably, not inevitably, correctly, much of the food aid will be 
that bulk aid. But to maintain a position that we will never use any of 
the food aid to buy the food on site, nearby, in ways that it can be 
done in ways that do not disturb local markets is a grave error.
  What bothers me about this appropriation is not simply that it bans 
that from happening, and I give credit to the administration and to the 
President, Administrator Natsios, my former legislative colleague from 
Massachusetts, who asked for the authority to do this. When that was 
rejected outright, there were various compromises proposed. The senior 
Senator from Ohio Mr. DeWine, I think senior, whatever, proposed a 
compromise in which a percentage of the emergency aid would be 
available.
  We are not talking, those of us who support this, about making all of 
even the emergency aid cash-based, but there ought to be a capacity in 
the Administrator to put some of the money that is appropriated into 
buying food locally. Now, I know, by the way, there are people on the 
Committee on Agriculture that say, no, that would be bad for the local 
markets. Mr. Speaker, I have a rule in politics: Try not to say 
anything that no one will believe is really your motive.
  When you look at this agricultural bill and American agricultural 
policy and the devastation our subsidy policy wreaks on local food 
markets, the notion that the people who make American agriculture 
policy in this Congress are really concerned about the poor local 
farmers is risible. We obviously have ways of dealing with the local 
impact, and I believe that Administrator Natsios is absolutely right.
  There is another argument here to which I give more credibility, and 
that is some of the organizations that are engaged in international 
development of food aid are the intermediaries here, and they get the 
food and they sell it, and they then use the money in various good 
ways. And these are good organizations.
  I will note that two of the major organizations here, OXFAM and CARE, 
have decided, no, they do not need to have 100 percent of the aid being 
given in bulk, and that a percentage of the emergency aid, that is all 
we are talking about, a percentage of the emergency aid being 
available, not mandated, but being available when appropriate, to be 
bought on site or nearby, not right on site, but nearby, that is 
better. There are other organizations that have concerns.
  I notice one of them is the Catholic Relief Services, which does 
great work. I do want to express great concern, Mr. Speaker. I hope in 
consequence to the what the President sent this House on Wednesday, I 
hope that Catholic Relief Services, because they want to help people 
overseas, will not be told the that Catholic Church cannot do voter 
registration to get out the vote, which

[[Page 24200]]

is what some people would say if they helped people locally. So I hope 
that the restrictions on the Catholic Church and other good 
organizations that the majority wants to apply if they are doing things 
domestically to help the poor will not also apply to their 
international efforts. I hope we will work out a compromise.
  Let me close by saying I was particularly disturbed by this language, 
and it is the Republican majority, the great believers in openness, the 
great principled reformers, here is what their report says, the 
majority report, on this bill. ``The conferees further admonish the 
executive branch to refrain from proposals which place at risk a 
carefully balanced coalition of interests which have served the 
interests of international food assistance programs well for more than 
50 years.''
  In other words, we got a deal going here. Take your principles and 
get out of here before you upset the apple cart. Do not come to us 
talking about a more efficient way to provide emergency food aid to 
people, because you might break up our political deal.
  Some reform.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, as always, the gentleman from Massachusetts' 
rapier wit is as sharp as ever, but in this case misdirected as his 
faults are with the underlying bill itself and not with the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague from 
Massachusetts for raising some very interesting points. I had spoken 
earlier about the McGovern-Dole program, which I feel very strongly 
about. One of the good things about the way this program has been set 
up is it provides flexibility so that if, in fact, you need to respond 
to a particular need in a country, to provide food, and there is no 
food that you can buy in that country, you can use American 
agricultural produce to be able to feed people.
  If, in fact, you can buy locally, if there is enough food to buy 
locally, you can monetize our agricultural riches, and you can then buy 
the products locally. You can also monetize it to help pay for 
transportation of some of this food. So it seems to me that it is not 
all one way or another way, it is somewhere in between, and we need to 
continue to work this out. But you need to have flexibility in these 
programs.
  Again, I think the McGovern-Dole program is a good example of what 
works.
  I should also say that Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos are on 
the floor from the International Relations Committee. Both have been 
very, very helpful in promoting the McGovern-Dole program, and I am 
grateful for their efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member on the committee.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, if I can briefly address the just prior conversation, I 
will commend my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) in terms of 
trying to make some clarification on the issue of food assistance.
  I also will commend my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) in 
this regard: I know where his heart is on food assistance; it is where 
we all need to be. I will tell you that we can discuss the nature of 
the problem in terms of the distribution, but I think what was 
particularly important in this committee was when we first had the 
money presented for food assistance, it was less, less, in the 
President's budget than we had in the prior year, and it was split 
between our committee and sending money to AID, thereby lowering the 
dollar amount by about $265 million.
  We were adamant about trying to maintain a higher level of 
assistance, and, I tell you, without having the benefit of getting back 
that $265 million from AID, we were able to bring the dollar amount on 
food assistance up to $1.1 billion, which we are proud of, and that is 
part of the admonition in the conference report.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding and for what she says. I know she is very much on the side of 
doing this in the right way, and confronted with particular facts, you 
have to deal with things. So I do believe that a rational food aid 
policy will include some flexibility on buying the food in an 
emergency, time and everything else, but I certainly agree it should 
not come at the expense of the overall program.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say thank you again to my colleague for 
yielding to me. I want to say thank you to Chairman Bonilla for working 
to deliver this bill to the floor and for working across the aisle. I 
have enjoyed working with him, even when we differ on issues and 
priorities. I know that he takes the responsibilities as Chair very, 
very seriously, and I have a deep respect for him for that.
  In addition, I want to say thank you to his staff and the gentleman 
from Wisconsin's staff and my staff, all of whom have worked so 
diligently this year and for long hours. These are good public 
servants, all of them.
  I am particularly pleased that after several years we had the 
opportunity to participate in a conference meeting to resolve several 
outstanding issues in a public capacity. Indeed, we had an open 
conversation and a discussion about matters including conflict of 
interest waivers on FDA advisory boards, the integrity of the food 
stamp program and our national animal identification system, to name 
but a few.

                              {time}  0945

  I only wish that the same spirit of openness and transparency with 
which we discussed those issues had guided the conference efforts to 
resolve them, because I believe what we are doing is important here.
  The programs funded through this bill directly impact the everyday 
lives of Americans, from public health to the FDA, to rural 
development, infrastructure maintenance, environmental conservation and 
preservation, nutrition assistance at home and abroad. Failure to 
adequately invest in these programs will have a serious long-term 
consequence for our Nation.
  Unfortunately, in some of these areas, the bill falls short. I 
believe the President's budget failed to meet the needs of rural 
America, decimating rural development programs. This bill makes some 
headway in reversing cuts made by the President, providing $80 million 
more than the President's request for rural water and waste grants, for 
example. However, I am concerned that this number remains below the 
level in last year's House bill and well below the 2004 level.
  Rural America faces serious economic development challenges, from 
affordable housing and clean drinking water, to sewage systems and 
access to remote educational and medical resources; and I am afraid 
that this funding shortfall will lead to long-term deficiencies in 
rural infrastructure.
  In addition, this bill covers the funding of the most important 
agency in the entire government: the Food and Drug Administration. FDA 
oversees the safety of products that Americans use every day, the vast 
majority of our processed and fresh foods, our prescription drugs, our 
medical devices, and our blood supply. And this agency has had many 
problems over the last year, from abrupt resignations of key staff, to 
the recalls of Bextra and Vioxx, to hearings that have exposed the 
fissures that have developed between drug safety scientists and the 
senior management at FDA.
  Along those lines, I want to say thank you again to Chairman Bonilla 
for working with me to include funding to double the annual funding for 
review of direct-to-consumer ads by FDA, as well as another $5 million 
for drug safety at the FDA.
  In 2001, the drug industry spent $2.7 billion on direct-to-consumer 
advertising; but the FDA office, charged with ensuring that those ads 
are accurate, was funded at less than $1 million. Doubling that amount 
is a small

[[Page 24201]]

start toward remedying the problem. The $5 million will be devoted to 
the most critical aspects of drug safety.
  There are other issues, of course, that I look forward to discussing 
later on today, but I believe there are areas in which we have made 
real progress and others which I hope that we can revisit in the next 
budget cycle.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is the best of times and the worst of times, today 
particularly. On this bill and on this rule, I want to first thank 
Chairman Bonilla of the Appropriations Committee and the staff, 
particularly Martin, Maureen, Leslie, Tom, and Jamie, for doing an 
admirable job; and they did it with the allocation figure they were 
given.
  I also want to congratulate ranking member Rosa DeLauro for 
completing her first cycle as ranking. I thank her for her hard work on 
the food safety and FDA issues. I also want to thank Martha Foley on 
our side. She is always ready with an answer anytime one asks.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the efforts of Chairman Bonilla in crafting 
this bill, which is an improvement over the President's budget request. 
I particularly want to thank the chairman for working with me to find 
$7 million for the Specialty Crop Block Grant program in full committee 
and maintaining that funding in the conference report that we have 
before us today.
  Investing in our specialty crop agriculture is imperative, and this 
certainly will be a happy day for the industry and all those who 
produce our Nation's fruits, vegetables, and nuts. I look forward to 
working together to provide innovative and effective assistance to make 
the specialty crop industry more competitive in the future; and, I 
might add, this is the industry that does not receive subsidies or help 
from the government.
  Because of the work of this committee, my growers will now have help 
with pests such as vine mealy bug and diseases such as verticillium 
wilt, and we will continue a voluntary water quality study for the 
entire Monterey Bay watershed.
  But as with any legislation this lengthy, it cannot all be good. I am 
very disappointed with, and strongly oppose, section 797 which was 
added as a ``legislative fix'' to an Organic Foods Production Act in 
response to a ruling by the courts in Harvey v. Johanns after the 
conference committee had adjourned, subject to call of the Chair. There 
was no public disclosure. This was all done behind closed doors.
  These changes will not return us to the status quo prior to the 
lawsuit. Rather, this legislative fix will weaken both law and existing 
regulatory standards and restrict the authority of the National Organic 
Standards Board.
  For example, numerous synthetic food additives and processing aids, 
including over 500 food contact substances, can be used in organic 
foods without public review. Young dairy cows can continue to be 
treated with antibiotics and fed genetically engineered feed prior to 
being converted to organic production. Loopholes under which nonorganic 
ingredients could be substituted for organic ingredients can occur 
without any notification to the public based on emergency decrees.
  If the history of OFPA has taught us anything, it is that changes 
should be done following an inclusive and transparent process that 
unites, rather than divides, the organic community. At the very least, 
the process should have given all stakeholders a fair chance to vet the 
proposed changes and their likely consequences.
  Consumers are willing to pay more for organic food because organic 
offers the most authentic of natural food. Consumers expect that food 
carrying the organic label will be natural and should not contain 
synthetic ingredients.
  In a March 2005 nationwide survey, 85 percent of the respondents did 
not expect food labeled ``organic'' to contain any artificial 
ingredients, a finding that is directly in opposition to the actions of 
the conference committee. The real losers under this policy change are 
American consumers. Consumers who care about having natural food will 
have to look for additional claims to organic, such as ``no synthetic 
ingredients included'' on processed foods and ``100 percent grass fed'' 
on meat and dairy products in order to know that their expectations 
have been met.
  This amendment undermines consumer confidence in the integrity of the 
national organic program. Back-room deals without proper debate 
undermine the integrity of the entire organic industry, and we are 
certain to visit this fix again and again.
  Mr. Speaker, we have come a long way with this process. Despite 
section 797, our farmers will be better off because of this 
legislation, and I want to thank all of my committee members for 
putting together such a good appropriations bill. I support the action 
of the committee when we followed regular order, and when we did that, 
we crafted a good bill. I only wish we would have finished the bill 
together so the process was as good as the final product.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I again want to commend Chairman Bonilla 
and Ranking Member DeLauro for their great work and the members of the 
committee, and I urge support of the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the speakers on 
both sides of the aisle. I agree with them that Chairman Bonilla has 
led a very balanced process as we move agricultural policy in this 
country into the 21st century. It is a large appropriations bill. It 
covers a wide array of needs in this Nation, from WIC and child 
nutrition programs, to the conservation side and all that that entails 
in terms of making sure that we are not eroding our valuable topsoil, 
making sure that we have wildlife habitat, and making sure that 
environmentalists understand that farmers are the true stewards of that 
land. And frankly, at the root of the bill, the most important service, 
is to allow American farmers and ranchers to continue to grow the 
safest, most affordable, most abundant food supply and be able to feed 
not only our country but the rest of the world as well.
  It is a real tribute that there is bipartisan support for this 
legislation to make sure that we are competitive in the 21st century, 
that we are compliant with our global trade agreements, that we are 
continuing to push ahead in fighting the war against hunger, making 
sure that we continue to fight the war against obesity, and allowing 
our farmers and ranchers to be competitive.
  So it is a testament to the bill, and it is a testament to the 
authors of that bill on both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________