[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 24209-24223]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2744, AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD 
 AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 520, I call up 
the conference report on 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.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 520, the 
conference report is considered read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
October 26, 2005, at page H9204.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and 
the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla).
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring before the House today the 
conference report on H.R. 2744, which is the Agriculture appropriations 
bill, which not only covers agriculture, but the Food and Drug 
Administration and related agencies for fiscal year 2006.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the good work of the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), my ranking member and good friend, who 
has contributed greatly to this process. It has been a real pleasure 
working with her and all the members of the subcommittee in getting to 
this point today.
  I believe we have produced a good, bipartisan conference agreement 
that does a lot to advance important nutrition, research and rural 
development programs and still meet our conference allocations on 
discretionary spending and mandatory spending. My goal this year has 
been to produce a bipartisan bill, and I believe we have done a good 
job in reaching that goal.
  This conference agreement does have significant increases over fiscal 
year 2005 for programs that have always enjoyed strong bipartisan 
support, and they include the following: Agricultural Research Service, 
$33 million; Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension 
Service, $33 million; Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, $7 
million; Food Safety and Inspection Service, $21 million; Farm Service 
Agency, $48 million; Natural Resources Conservation Service, $12 
million; Rural Economic and Community Development Programs, $115 
million; Domestic Food Programs, $6.5 billion; and the FDA, $40 
million.
  We have delayed implementation of the country-of-origin labeling for 
meat, produce and peanuts until 2008. The House voted for delay on COOL 
while this bill was considered on the floor. There are serious concerns 
about how this law would be implemented, and this delay gives the 
Department and the committee of jurisdiction the time to make this 
policy work.
  Mr. Speaker, we refer to this bill as the agriculture bill, but it 
does far more than assist just basic agriculture. It also supports 
rural and economic development, human nutrition, agricultural exports, 
land conservation, as well as 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 you represent.
  I would say to all Members that they can support this conference 
agreement and tell all of their constituents that they voted to improve 
their lives while maintaining fiscal responsibility.
  The conference agreement 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 California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey), who serve as the distinguished chairman and ranking member 
of the full Committee on Appropriations. They have been very supportive 
in moving not only this bill, but other appropriations bills through 
the Congress as quickly as possible.

[[Page 24210]]

  I have tried our best to put together a good, solid bill that works 
for all of America. Much of it is compromise, to be sure, but I believe 
it is a good compromise and good policy.
  In closing, I would also like to thank the subcommittee staff for all 
of their hard work. None of this could get done without the strong, 
good commitment, the hard work that this staff puts in day in and day 
out, sometimes well into the night and covering many weekends: Martin 
Delgado, the subcommittee clerk; Maureen Holohan, Leslie Barrack, and 
Jamie Swafford of the majority staff; and Martha Foley on the minority 
staff. In addition, I want to thank our detailee Tom O'Brien, and a 
great Texas Aggie, Walt Smith, from my personal staff.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge all of my colleagues to support this 
conference agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, I include at this point in the Record tabular material 
related to this bill.

[[Page 24211]]

TH28OC05.001



[[Page 24212]]

TH28OC05.002



[[Page 24213]]

TH28OC05.003



[[Page 24214]]

TH28OC05.004



[[Page 24215]]

TH28OC05.005



[[Page 24216]]

TH28OC05.006



[[Page 24217]]

TH28OC05.007



[[Page 24218]]

TH28OC05.008



[[Page 24219]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1045

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his statement. I am 
pleased to join with him today as we complete the work on this year's 
Agriculture appropriations bill, the first in my capacity as ranking 
member of the agriculture appropriations subcommittee.
  It has been a pleasure to work with Chairman Bonilla and his staff to 
put together this bill, as well as with Chairman Lewis and Ranking 
Member Obey in an effort to get here today.
  I want to say thank you to the subcommittee staffs for their hard 
work. It truly is yeoman's work. I know that the staffs met for several 
weeks to iron out the differences between the House and Senate bills. 
We certainly appreciate all of their hard work.
  This has been a privilege. When I chose to sit on this subcommittee 9 
years ago, I did so because I have always believed that the issues 
overseen by this subcommittee speak to the core responsibilities of the 
Federal Government. This is the only subcommittee where farm policy, 
rural development, conservation, nutrition programs, food safety, drug 
regulation and public health all come together.
  As such, it is my belief that the bill that we discuss today is more 
than a list of programs and funding levels. It is a statement of 
values, principles and priorities. So when we discuss this bill, I 
believe we think of it in those terms. We should remember that farm 
programs, international trade promotion and advocacy that help our 
farmers across the country sell our products may have profound 
implications on our Nation's overall economy and quality of life. The 
research programs at USDA are critical to our efforts to protect our 
agriculture products, our national herd and our public health.
  Indeed, there are many aspects of the bill that I am very proud of, 
particularly in the area of rural development. Whether it is affordable 
housing, clean drinking water or sewage systems, access to remote 
educational and medical resources, we know that rural America faces 
serious economic development challenges. And I believe the President's 
budget failed to address those challenges, decimating many rural 
development programs.
  And despite our hard work, the overall figure remains below the level 
of last year's House bill, well below the 2004 level, and I am afraid 
that the funding shortfall in this bill will lead to long-term problems 
with rural infrastructure.
  But together we made real headway in reversing those cuts. Indeed, I 
am proud of the work we were able to accomplish with respect to 
affordable housing in rural America. We were able to keep the House 
level on section 502 single family direct loans, which help low- and 
very low-income households obtain homeownership; and 515 loans for 
multifamily housing projects to provide living units for people with 
low and moderate incomes in rural areas. The agreement provides $141 
million and $10 million over the respective Senate levels.
  We also agreed to a new $9 million demonstration program under 
section 515 to preserve affordable rural multifamily housing. We 
created a new $16 million rental housing voucher program to protect 
tenants residing in section 515 multifamily housing from being 
threatened by their landlords, as well as preserving a nearly $3 
million low-income multifamily housing preservation revolving fund in 
the Senate bill.
  We made sure to secure language regarding Farm Service Agency office 
closings. FSA provides that critical link between the farmer and the 
Federal Government's critical services, delivering assistance to 
specialty crop producers, disbursal of payments for programs such as 
the peanut buyout, and the handling of disaster assistance payments. 
Our language ensures that if FSA closes any field offices, it would 
require public hearings in the affected areas so that the voices of the 
community will be heard by USDA before any action is taken, and giving 
Congress 120 days advance notice.
  Of course, this bill's impact on the public health is significant as 
well, from FDA's responsibilities to feeding programs, which urban 
areas like my hometown of New Haven rely on for women, infants and 
children, for schools, and for seniors and the disabled living on the 
edge of poverty. Ensuring that these programs are both funded and 
operated efficiently is, in my opinion, among the very serious 
obligations of government, obligations we are charged in the 
subcommittee with overseeing.
  I am pleased that we agreed to the funding levels in the House and 
Senate bills for the Women, Infants and Children Program in the 
conference agreement. We also protected the program's reserve fund in 
the unlikely case the current estimates in funding prove too low.
  I was particularly pleased we were able to secure strong report 
language directing the Secretary of USDA to tell all agencies to take 
all necessary steps to keep avian flu out of the U.S., providing a 
report to us by March of next year on the progress of those efforts. We 
need to do whatever it takes to aggressively tackle this urgent public 
health matter, including engaging USDA in that effort. We also added 
strong report language calling on FDA to develop a response plan on 
human-to-human transmission of avian influenza.
  I thank the chairman for working with me to double the annual funding 
for review of direct-to-consumer ads by FDA, as well as another $5 
million for the highest-priority drug safety needs 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 only $884,000. Doubling that amount is a small start 
toward remedying the inequitable advantage, and the $5 million will be 
devoted to the most critical aspects of drug safety.
  Mr. Speaker, I was pleased by many aspects of this bill. I was 
particularly pleased that after several years we had an opportunity to 
participate in a conference meeting to resolve several outstanding 
issues, and to do so in a public capacity. But I was disappointed that 
same openness and transparency did not carry all the way through to the 
resolution of all outstanding issues.
  And there is much to be done, from food stamps and drug reimportation 
to reform at FDA and meat labeling. As the agency entrusted with 
ensuring the safety of our food and drug supply and to protect the 
public health, we all understand how important it is that we maintain 
FDA's integrity. But the past year has been particularly difficult, 
from the flu vaccine shortages caused by inept manufacturing oversight 
to delayed withdrawal of medicines such as Vioxx that have resulted in 
thousands of unreported deaths to ongoing safety concerns regarding 
medical devices.
  Restoring integrity to FDA starts with providing better guidelines in 
the makeup of its advisory committees. What is particularly troubling 
is the granting of waivers by FDA to scientists and other experts who 
have potential conflicts of interest. Permitting these experts to serve 
and vote regardless of conflict is wrong. This must stop. FDA ought to 
rely on the opinions of unconflicted, fully qualified professional 
advisers so that the agency can receive the best unbiased advice 
possible.
  The House adopted an amendment 218-210 that would have stopped the 
granting of such waivers for 1 year for voting members of FDA advisory 
committees. I believe this was the right approach. Surely we have 
enough doctors and scientists in this country that we can find unbiased 
solutions. The Senate adopted language that fails to address the issue 
by allowing the current practice at FDA to continue. In an effort to 
break the deadlock on the issue, I offered a compromise amendment at 
the conference, an amendment that the chairman graciously supported, 
but the Senate would not accept.
  I am disappointed with the language that the majority put into the 
conference agreement. I think it will both

[[Page 24220]]

deter people from serving on advisory committees, while failing to stop 
the FDA from granting conflict of interest waivers to scientists, 
allowing them to continue on these advisory committees. My hope is in 
the coming year we can resolve the problem.
  Another serious shortcoming in the bill is in the area of country of 
origin labeling, giving people the information they need to make an 
informed choice to protect the safety of their families. Thirty-five 
other countries we trade with already have a country of origin food 
labeling system in place, this at a time when food imports are 
increasing, avian flu poses a serious risk, but the number of 
inspections of imported meat are decreasing.
  And given the fact that we continue to have major recalls of meat 
products, 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 critical to the process so we can quickly take action to 
prevent people from getting sick.
  Unfortunately, this conference report pushes back any action to 
implement a labeling system until September 2008. It expands the 
moratorium to include fruits and vegetables, something that was not in 
the House bill. I regret to say this is a serious failing, a decision 
on which we had no input. I hope the Congress will revisit this soon.
  Perhaps the biggest disappointment in this bill, one so antithetical 
to the subcommittee's mission that I believe it undermines much of the 
good work we have done in the past year, is our failure to protect the 
integrity of the food stamp program, one of the most effective, well-
run Federal programs we have.
  Twenty-five million citizens receive food stamp benefits, children, 
seniors, low-income families, many displaced by the recent hurricanes. 
Despite these immense responsibilities, this bill allows a plan to 
delegate certification and enrollment of recipients for food stamps to 
a private firm with no accountability or quality assurances.
  But the Texas Food Stamp Privatization Plan would lay off at least 
1,200 State workers, closing more than a quarter of State-run 
eligibility offices around the State, replacing staff at low hourly 
rates. Major responsibilities would fall to community organizations, 
which have admitted they do not have the capacity to handle. Clients 
would be forced to travel long distances or rely on the Internet for 
services, with serious implications for seniors, low-income families 
and those with disabilities.
  In addition, the plan appears to flout the law, conflicting with 
Federal statutes governing the food stamp program which require States 
to obtain a waiver from USDA.
  What makes this so unfortunate is that it is so unnecessary. The food 
stamp program right now is operating with the lowest error rate it has 
ever had. Texas itself has a very well-operated program. This is not 
simply about an isolated issue in Texas. Taxpayers all over the country 
pay half the cost of running the food stamp program. We have an 
obligation to ensure that the program is run effectively, efficiently 
and in compliance with the law. Quite simply, the conference report 
fails to fulfill that obligation, one of our most serious 
responsibilities for this subcommittee.
  Just let me mention one or two areas of concern that I have. The 
House and Senate adopted identical language prohibiting the use of 
Federal funds for the inspection of horses for slaughter for human 
food. It was a wide margin on roll calls in both Houses. Still there 
were concerns that the provision would be dropped, and in the final 
agreement between House and Senate, I was pleased to see the 
prohibition maintained, even if it was delayed for 120 days.
  I am confused by the notion as the bill was ready to be filed that 
there was included a completely new authorizing legislation on horse 
slaughter, making it parliamentarily impossible to offer this amendment 
ever again on the House floor. It seems to me that flies in the face of 
our democratic process.
  Another provision that was not either in the House or Senate bill or 
discussed in conference which was inserted without debate before the 
conference report was filed has to do with a series of changes to the 
Organic Foods Production Act of 1990. Members may be dismayed to know 
that section 796 of the bill contains language permanently amending the 
Immigration and Nationality Act. It was adopted by the Senate as part 
of the bill. I do not know why the sponsor had to have it enacted now 
without careful consideration and hearing, and why it was included in 
the agriculture appropriations bill.
  As I pointed out, I think we made tremendous progress, and we are 
going to move forward and adopt this piece of legislation. Despite my 
concerns, it has been a pleasure working with the chairman on this 
effort on this important bill. I believe we do have much to be proud 
of. We can feel a sense of accomplishment about the finished product. 
My hope is we can address the issues where there still appear to be 
differences and that we can move forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whit-
field).
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Bonilla for 
yielding. He is most gracious to yield to someone who will speak 
against the conference report and will reluctantly vote against the 
conference report. It is not every committee chairman that would yield 
to anyone that would do that, particularly when you are talking about 
an appropriation bill.
  I rise today in opposition reluctantly to this, but I do so primarily 
because of an issue of process that I have become more and more 
concerned about in my 11 years in the U.S. Congress.
  This conference report was filed last night. The Rules Committee met 
quickly after that, developing the rule for consideration of the 
conference report. The conference report violated rule XXII of the 
House and violated rule XXVIII of the Senate in that section 798 was 
included in this conference report which was not a part of the House 
bill, was not a part of the Senate bill, and specifically changes 
substantive law.
  Yet as is usually the case, the Rules Committee issues a rule waiving 
all points of order, which actually does raise a question of why does 
the House need rules, why does the Senate need rules, if we are always 
waiving those rules and Members never have an opportunity to bring an 
issue up.
  Mr. Speaker, 798 is not about horse slaughter, and we have heard a 
lot about horse slaughter. I will admit I am one of those in the House 
that is making an effort to do what we can to stop the slaughter of 
horses for human consumption in Europe. There are only two companies 
left in the U.S. that are still doing this. One is owned by a French 
company, and one is owned by a company in Belgium. But that is not the 
issue here today.
  Section 798 changed section 619 of title 21 of the Federal Meat 
Inspection Act.

                              {time}  1100

  And the substantive change adopted in the conference report without 
the knowledge of many people in the conference, we have had four 
different lawyers look at this language, and we have come up with four 
different answers. And even the attorney for the United States 
Department of Agriculture sent us an explanation, and they said, We 
have reviewed section 798 and its intent is not clear. We have had some 
private lawyers look at it, and they have come up with one conclusion.
  So all four lawyers came up with different conclusions, but one thing 
that they all stated quite specifically was that it is a very vague 
statute. It is a very vague section. So what we are doing here, it is a 
section that treats equines, mules, and horses differently than other 
species of animals, and it is being changed significantly. And all of 
the attorneys have agreed that it is vague.
  The U.S. Department of Agriculture, as I stated, does not know its 
intents;

[[Page 24221]]

so basically what we are doing is we are including this provision which 
is legislating on our appropriation bill and the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture is going to write the regulations, and we are not going to 
have any control of over it, in my view.
  So I come today to simply express my opposition of this process that 
I find becoming more prevalent. Another example of this was in the 
omnibus bill last year in which 70 years of policy on protecting wild 
mustangs was changed without anyone's knowledge. And here today we do 
not have any agreement on what this language does, and we are going to 
be voting upon it.
  But I would want to, in conclusion, state that I reluctantly am going 
to vote against the conference report, but I do want to thank Chairman 
Lewis and Chairman Bonilla for allowing me to speak. I appreciate that 
very much.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Ms. DeLauro), our ranking member, has stated many of the concerns 
which Members of Congress have with this bill. I would like to state 
mine, and indicate why I am going to vote against the agriculture 
appropriations conference report.
  Section 797 undermines the organic food industry by changing the 
definition of organic food without a congressional hearing, without 
agreement by the National Organic Standards Board, and without consumer 
consent.
  All across America when people go shopping, there are millions of 
Americans who are looking for the organic label. Why? Because it is 
considered to be a label that is indicative of greater integrity in 
food, food which is not likely to be poisoned with pesticides, food 
which is carefully grown by organic farmers, food which is healthier. 
People trust that organic label.
  But Americans should know that this bill has changed the organic food 
law and that big food companies have prodded Congress to change the 
organic food law and that this would allow the use of several synthetic 
ingredients in organic products and potentially weaken the organic 
dairy standards.
  More specifically, the amendments which the industry has helped to 
put in this bill would leave unresolved whether young dairy cows could 
be treated with antibiotics and converted to organic within 12 months, 
which would create a serious new loophole in which organic ingredients 
could be substituted with nonorganic ingredients, without any consumer 
notice, based on emergency decrees. Now, consumer confidence in the 
organic label is absolutely essential to ensure a strong organic 
market.
  I have had the opportunity to meet with organic farmers all across 
America, and they take great pride in their product and in their 
produce. And what this bill does is it undermines organic standards. It 
could permanently allow synthetic processing aids and food contact 
substances including over 500 food contact substances to be used in 
organic foods without any type of public review for their safety and 
compatibility with organic production and processing.
  Let me tell the Members what this is reminiscent of. In 1992, the 
Food and Drug Administration ruled that genetically modified organisms 
were the functional equivalent of conventional foods. They had no 
scientific basis to make that decision, but they went ahead and set the 
stage for the very food that we eat to be altered genetically without 
any science behind it. Now, if we are what we eat, we should be careful 
about how our food is made so we know what we are going to become. And 
we have taken no concern about that in this Congress because today GMOs 
are found in hundreds of millions of acres of food in this country, and 
now we are weakening organic standards with this legislation.
  It is time for Congress to take a stand for pure food. It is time for 
Congress to take a stand for integrity in food. It is time for us to 
vote against this bill which undermines organic standards.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman very much for yielding 
me this time.
  I just want to take a minute to thank the chairman for doing such an 
unbelievably great job through a very difficult year with the 
allocations; and the ranking member, who has worked so hard on this 
bill and is a very good friend; and certainly and most importantly, the 
staff who have done just a fabulous job of putting together this most 
difficult bill.
  Obviously, there are a lot of things we need to do in agriculture 
with the FDA throughout this entire bill.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LATHAM. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I would love to associate 
myself with his remarks.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, one very important 
priority is the completion of the animal health facility at Ames, Iowa, 
and this $58.8 million will complete that $462 million project. And it 
is so important for human health, animal health, food safety.
  I just want to thank the committee chairman and the ranking member 
for their support.
  I rise in support of this conference report, and encourage the 
members of the House to do the same, as this is a well-balanced 
measure. In a climate of tight allocations, the chairman has done an 
outstanding job of ensuring that sufficient resources are available for 
the broad range of programs that are funded under this bill.
  Congresswoman DeLauro has proved to be an excellent ranking member. 
And, I want to commend the committee staffs on both sides; once again, 
they have done a fine job under difficult circumstances.
  Like many Members from rural America, I wish we could have applied 
higher funding levels in this bill. However, given our budget 
constraints, I am generally pleased with the funding levels provided.
  This year, the other body finally saw the light and agreed to final 
funding for the National Animal Disease Center Modernization Project.
  This funding will give the Department of Agriculture a world-class 
facility, with a broad range of animal disease research capabilities.
  For renewable energy--another important sector to our part of the 
country and to the agriculture economy--the bill provides 23 million 
dollars.
  This program provides small grants that help farmers and small 
businesses make energy efficiency improvements--ultimately helping 
farmers hurt by high fuel prices.
  The measure funds important agriculture research, for both crops and 
livestock. Like many of my colleagues we must renew our commitment to 
agriculture research which holds great promise for the future of 
American agriculture.
  Over the years, we have made great strides through research, in areas 
such as disease prevention, food safety, crop yields and animal health.
  For example, there is again research funding for soybean rust 
including new treatments for emerging soybean diseases that threaten 
the economies of our rural communities.
  Another important element of the bill is funding under the Hatch Act. 
These funds sustain critical research at our land grant universities. 
Without Hatch Act funding we would severely limit the ongoing progress 
being made by some our Nation's most talented scientists and educators.
  In summary I have noted just a few of the important parts of this FY 
06 Agriculture Appropriations Conference Report.
  This was a difficult process but we have a good bill that protects 
our food supply, safeguards the environment and ensures our country 
continues to benefit from the safest and most reliable pharmaceutical 
and medical devices in the world.
  Again, I urge the members to support this conference report.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, let me just say once again what a pleasure 
it has been to work with the chairman and his staff, in particular, 
Maureen Holohan, Leslie Barrack, Jennifer Miller, and Martin Delgado. I 
appreciate all of their efforts and good work.
  As I say to my staff, I was in a staff position before and all of 
this does not happen by some alchemy. It happens because good people do 
a lot of good work. I am most appreciative of the assistance from Rob 
Nabors and Martha

[[Page 24222]]

Foley and, from my own staff, Ashley Turton and Leticia Mederos.
  I will support the conference report.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, today, I voted against the 
conference report on H.R. 2744, the Agriculture, Rural Development, 
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act 
for Fiscal Year 2006, primarily because it did not include an extension 
of the Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) program. I have fought very 
hard for the MILC extension and was disappointed that it could not be 
included. In addition, the conference report is $199 million over its 
budget allocation. While I was given assurances that future funding 
will be cut to offset this discrepancy, this appropriations bill should 
not have been brought to the floor over its allocation. I will be 
watching very closely to ensure this funding is offset in future bills.
  That said, I support many of the provisions in this conference 
report. In particular, I was pleased to help secure $2.25 million for 
the Wisconsin and Minnesota Health Care Cooperative Purchasing Alliance 
Demonstrations Projects. This funding will provide health care coverage 
to small businesses and family farms in rural areas across the State. 
The bill also contains $1.75 million I requested for the State of 
Wisconsin to combat Chronic Wasting Disease. Despite the many positive 
aspects of this legislation, on balance--because of the negative 
factors I mentioned--I believe it was not worthy of my support.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I have a number of problems with the Fiscal 
Year 2006 Agriculture Appropriations conference report as it stands 
now. Its damage to provisions on country-of-origin labeling and organic 
standards are two alarming reasons to vote against the bill.
  But Mr. Speaker, I am most disappointed with this bill's final 
language regarding conflicts of interest on FDA Advisory Boards.
  As you may recall, earlier this year members from both sides of the 
aisle supported my amendment to shut down bad behavior at the Food and 
Drug Administration on this issue.
  In fact, 217 members of this chamber agreed with me that when the FDA 
allows scientists with financial conflicts of interest to serve on 
advisory boards that judge the safety, effectiveness, and viability of 
various medical treatments, the public health is jeopardized at the 
expense of inappropriate and personal interests.
  These appointments flat-out undermine the objectivity of committee 
advice and bias recommendations.
  And yet, the final language that we are considering today is more 
like a present to the agency for its bad behavior, instead of the 
treatment it truly deserves.
  This language enables the FDA to keep on allowing conflicted 
panelists to vote on matters that they have no business judging. While 
this bill does include new reporting requirements that are intended to 
help watchdogs keep an eye on how frequently the FDA uses these 
waivers, I am concerned that the language contains considerable 
loopholes that will enable the agency to continue to evade its 
responsibility of protecting the American public in this regard.
  In fact, the bill as it stands now is particularly damaging because 
it would allow the FDA to give the appearance of responsibility while 
simultaneously continuing dangerous and corrupted practices.
  I said it last summer and I'll say it again: if you think that 
scientists who rely on drug companies for their financial wherewithal 
are going to recommend that the FDA take action that will harm those 
companies, then you are living in a fantasy world.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, while I supported the Agriculture 
Appropriations bill when it was originally considered on the House 
floor, I was disappointed in the conference committee's failure to 
maintain some essential programs and I voted against the conference 
report.
  The agreement further delays mandatory country-of-origin labeling for 
meat or meat products. Congress recognized the importance of this 
program in ensuring food safety when it passed the 2002 Farm Bill and 
the need is even more apparent now. It is perplexing why, in a time of 
mad cow outbreaks and the threat of bioterrorism, we would cut funding 
for this important program.
  I was also disappointed to see a change to the organic standard, that 
was not performed in a transparent manner. I am hopeful that in the 
future Congress can work together more productively to pass an 
agriculture bill that reflects the values of Americans and properly 
funds the programs that are important to them.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I voted for the 2006 Agriculture 
Appropriations Conference Committee because it funds programs important 
to Maine and the Nation. However, I oppose Sec. 797 because it amends 
the definition of organic food without a Congressional hearing or 
agreement by the National Organic Standards Board.
  On January 26, 2005, the First Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 
ruling in Harvey v. Veneman, a lawsuit brought by Arthur Harvey, an 
organic blueberry farmer from Maine with operations in Hartford and 
Buckfield, against the Secretary of Agriculture. Harvey claimed that 
several provisions of the USDA's National Organic Regulations were in 
conflict with the Organic Foods Production Act. The U.S. District Court 
for the District of Maine issued its Consent Final Judgment and Order 
on June 9, 2005. The court ruled in Harvey's favor on three counts.
  Specifically, the court found that existing regulations allowing the 
use of synthetic substances in the handling and processing of products 
labeled with the USDA ``Organic'' label and seal are contrary to the 
intent and language of the OFPA. This final judgment requires USDA to 
develop new rules within one year. It also allows producers, handlers, 
and processors to operate and sell products under the old rules until 
June 2007.
  Regulatory changes are a viable means to resolve the inconsistencies 
between the law (OFPA) and the National Organic Program regulations. 
The organic farming community opposes the broadening of the definition 
of organic to include synthetic ingredients. Changes in this area 
should have been made in an open manner under regular order and not 
inserted as a rider to the Agricultural Appropriations bill.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this conference 
report for H.R. 2744, the ``Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
Drug Administration, Appropriations Act of 2006.''
  While the amounts in the bill are not adequate to fully meet the 
needs of rural Colorado--and I'm disappointed that there isn't more--
the fact is that the Federal Government is being forced to do more with 
less in a time of record budget deficits.
  The conference report does include some important improvements over 
the House passed bill. This is particularly true as regards funding for 
conservation programs and rural development.
  The bill also provides support for research programs that are 
important to Colorado State University, including work on infectious 
disease and ultraviolet radiation monitoring.
  However, I am particularly disappointed with the conference 
committee's decision to continue to delay for another two years 
implementation of a mandatory country of origin labeling (COOL) for 
products such as meat and produce. The shortsightedness of the 
conference committee denies Colorado ranchers and farmers a wonderful 
resource to market their products and provide consumers a clear choice 
in the products they purchase.
  I also am disappointed by the lack of consultation, consensus and 
public discourse that marked the process of developing the legislative 
changes the conference report makes to the National Organics Program. 
Such legislative changes should be done in the most transparent manner 
possible and I am disappointed this was not the case.
  As this issue will certainly be revisited, I am hopeful the 
consumers, producers, manufacturers and supporters of organic 
agriculture can work together to advance this important part of 
agriculture in Colorado and around the country.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of the conference 
report on H.R. 2744, the Agriculture Appropriations Act for FY 2006 
because of the Conferee's decision to further delay mandatory country-
of-origin labeling until September 30, 2008.
  Country-of-origin labeling allows the consumer to make informed 
decisions about what to buy and allows the consumer to support specific 
farmers or producers at their discretion. Quite simply, American 
consumers should, and need to have the right to know where their food 
comes from. Imported meat is currently sold under the guise of a U.S. 
product and there is no way for consumers to differentiate the origin 
of their meat. This policy is an unfair and unnecessary risk to the 
American consumer.
  Congress passed mandatory country-of-origin labeling in the 2002 Farm 
Bill to be implemented on September 30, 2004. This bill will now 
further delay labeling four years from when it was originally scheduled 
to take effect. America wanted this provision in the last Farm Bill and 
Congress has again delayed its implementation.
  Unfortunately over 40 of our trading partners have country-of-origin 
labeling programs already in place, and despite all of our resources 
and technology, the U.S. has not been able to determine a method of 
implementation that provides our consumer with the

[[Page 24223]]

same information. Without this program in place, we are putting at risk 
two of our three largest beef export markets, Japan and Korea.
  For these reasons I cannot vote for this conference report today, and 
it is my hope that Congress will finally take seriously what is best 
for this country and the consumer.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on adoption of 
the conference report on H.R. 2744 will be followed by a 5-minute vote 
on adoption of H. Res. 523.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 318, 
nays 63, not voting 52, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 555]

                               YEAS--318

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herger
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Osborne
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--63

     Andrews
     Barrett (SC)
     Bass
     Bean
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bono
     Bradley (NH)
     Capuano
     Chocola
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     Duncan
     Engel
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Green (WI)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herseth
     Honda
     Hostettler
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Kirk
     Kucinich
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Marchant
     McCollum (MN)
     Nadler
     Otter
     Owens
     Paul
     Payne
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Price (GA)
     Ramstad
     Rehberg
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Schakowsky
     Shays
     Simmons
     Stearns
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Wexler
     Whitfield

                             NOT VOTING--52

     Baca
     Baker
     Becerra
     Berman
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boswell
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Calvert
     Clyburn
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Drake
     Eshoo
     Foley
     Ford
     Gallegly
     Gutierrez
     Harris
     Jefferson
     Jones (NC)
     Kind
     Kingston
     LaTourette
     Linder
     Lynch
     McDermott
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Napolitano
     Ney
     Nunes
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Pelosi
     Reyes
     Roybal-Allard
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Slaughter
     Smith (TX)
     Stark
     Tauscher
     Tiahrt
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Westmoreland
     Wu

                              {time}  1134

  Messrs. PAYNE, OTTER, and BARRETT of South Carolina, and Ms. McCOLLUM 
of Minnesota, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, and Ms. LEE changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. SULLIVAN, GOODLATTE, JOHNSON of Illinois, HERGER, Ms. 
KILPATRICK of Michigan, and Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California changed their 
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________