[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 11880-11887]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF 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 303 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 303

       Resolved,  That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     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 first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to 
     comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived except as 
     follows: beginning with the colon on page 54, line 4, through 
     ``overseas'' on line 9; section 749; page 81, lines 1 though 
     7; and beginning with ``and'' on page 81, line 11, through 
     ``programs'' on line 17. Where points of order are waived 
     against part of a paragraph or section, points of order 
     against a provision in another part of such paragraph or 
     section may be made only against such provision and not 
     against the entire paragraph or section. During consideration 
     of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of 
     the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of 
     whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be 
     printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated 
     for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so 
     printed shall be considered as read. When the committee rises 
     and reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation 
     that the bill do pass, the previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Putnam) is recognized for 1 hour.

                              {time}  1130

  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 303 is an open rule providing for 
consideration of 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 general debate shall be confined to the bill 
and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the 
bill, and waives all points of order against provisions in the bill for 
failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, prohibiting unauthorized 
appropriations or legislative provisions in an appropriations bill, 
except as specified in the resolution.
  Under the rules of the House, the bill shall be read for amendment by 
paragraph. After general debate, the bill shall be considered for 
amendment under the 5-minute rule.
  The resolution authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition 
to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional 
Record and provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to present for consideration this open 
rule for the agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006. As 
with most all appropriations bills, the Committee on Rules has once 
again afford the entire Chamber an opportunity to offer any amendment 
to this legislation that complies with the rules of the House.
  Members of the House are permitted to come to the floor and bring 
forth any idea or change they wish to see in this legislation. I am 
pleased that rule provides a chance for all of our Members to express 
their views on how our Nation should prioritize spending in this area.
  Article 1, section 9 of the United States Constitution says, ``No 
money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of 
appropriations made by law.''
  Our Founding Fathers established the role of the Committee on 
Appropriations to ensure that our Nation's spending is subject to 
oversight and approval by its elected representatives. The committee 
plays an important role in determining the wise use of taxpayer funds.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) and his 
subcommittee for the tremendously

[[Page 11881]]

difficult work this year in bringing the spending bill under its budget 
allocation. The Congressional budget is an important tool of the 
Congress, allowing us to establish priorities for the coming fiscal 
year. It is always encouraging to see the budget and the appropriations 
process work together in tandem, allowing Congress to ensure that our 
government acts in a fiscally responsible manner.
  The Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations 
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 women and children and 
the most disadvantaged in our country. The bill also works to maintain 
and build fiscal discipline.
  H.R. 2744 continues to fund important projects at a level consistent 
with fiscal year 2005, allocating nearly $17 billion plus $83 billion 
in total mandatory spending. At the same time, it addresses needs such 
as the protection of health and safety. In an effort to combat harmful 
pests and disease that threaten America's food supply, the Food Safety 
and Inspection Service funding is increased by $20 million over last 
year, and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service activities are 
funded at $16 million above last year's level, for a total of $829 
million.
  In addition, the Farm Service Agency's salaries and expenses are 
funded at the President's request of $1 billion, allowing the continued 
efficient delivery of farm and disaster programs that are so critical 
to wide swaths of our great Nation.
  To unlock much-needed advances in agricultural research and allow 
American farmers to have the tools necessary to produce a safe and 
wholesome food supply, the Agricultural Research Service is funded at 
over $1.1 billion.
  Additionally, USDA's Conservation Operations activities are increased 
by $26 million over the President's request, which allows farmers and 
ranchers to achieve important conservation and environmental goals as 
our Nation's farmers and ranchers are the original environmentalists in 
this country.
  This appropriations bill is an excellent example of how Congress can 
attain fiscal discipline and still fund our priorities. H.R. 2744 funds 
programs over the President's budget request, increasing funding in 
strategic areas while maintaining a funding level consistent with 
funding for fiscal year 2005.
  I am impressed with the work of the subcommittee, 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. I want to personally thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman 
Bonilla) and the Subcommittee on Agriculture of the Committee on 
Appropriations and the subcommittee staff for their continued 
commitment and attention to the needs of all of American agriculture 
and Florida in particular, especially in the aftermath of the 
hurricanes that devastated much of Florida's agriculture last summer 
and fall. The Committee on Appropriations' work is greatly appreciated.
  I also wish to thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) for 
his attention and dedication to the continued needs resulting from 
invasive pests and diseases that are affecting a number of crops 
throughout our country, including citrus canker affecting our citrus 
industry in Florida. I know that all of America's farmers and ranchers 
and consumers deeply appreciate the subcommittee's tireless efforts to 
assist our agricultural community.
  I urge Members to support this fair and open rule and the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) 
for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, passage of this rule will allow the House to consider 
the Agricultural, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2006.
  I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Texas 
(Chairman Bonilla) and the subcommittee's new ranking member, the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), for working so well 
together on this bill which clearly deserves the support of all the 
membership of this House.
  This important bill provides the funding for our domestic nutrition 
and anti-hunger programs, international food aid, the Food and Drug 
Administration, and food inspection. Although traditionally the bill is 
not controversial, it is an important appropriations bill because of 
the vitally important programs that are supported here.
  I want to express my strong support for the Department of Agriculture 
programs that fight to end hunger here at home and around the world. 
Mr. Speaker, hunger is a political problem, one that can be solved if 
only we have the political will to do so. Regrettably, the Bush 
administration and the leadership in this House and the Senate have not 
made the necessary commitments to reduce poverty and end hunger in our 
country. Indeed, hunger and poverty are once again on the rise in the 
United States. More children are going to bed hungry at night right 
here in the United States of America, the richest and most blessed 
country in the world. Every year six million children in our world die 
of hunger-related causes. We cannot and should not stand by and watch 
these tragedies unfold.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time we raise the bar and pledge to end hunger 
once and for all. It is time to really tackle the issue of poverty. In 
the meantime, until we make that commitment and back it up with real 
action and greater resources, we must at least maintain funding for the 
domestic and international nutrition and anti-hunger programs in this 
bill. That is why it is so important that this bill increases funding 
for mandatory programs like food stamps and other child nutrition 
programs like the school lunch program.
  I am also pleased that discretionary programs like WIC also receive 
increases. These programs are among the most successful of our Federal 
anti-hunger programs, and they help millions of Americans get the food 
they could not otherwise afford to buy.
  Unfortunately, important programs like the summer food service 
program are not fully funded. This important program provides meals to 
low-income children during the summer when they can not receive a 
school lunch because the schools are closed for summer vacation. There 
is no reason why a child who receives a lunch at school during the 
school year should be denied a lunch during the summer merely because 
school is out of session.
  Another important program that needs to be expanded is the school 
breakfast program. Too many of our children begin their school days 
hungry. They cannot concentrate as well as children who have something 
to eat before class. Those children who are fortunate enough to receive 
a school breakfast usually have to get to school earlier than the other 
kids. There is a stigma that gets attached to these children because it 
is plain for all the students to see who cannot afford to eat breakfast 
at home.
  We need to expand the school breakfast program so that it is a truly 
universal program, and we must provide school breakfast at the start of 
the school day and not before. These two simple actions will ensure 
that a nutritious meal is provided to hungry children without attaching 
any social stigma. The consequences of such basic changes will be 
measurable increases in learning and test scores, as well as 
improvements in health.
  A third program that needs to be fully funded is the effort to end 
the reduced price meal. Currently, low-income children are eligible for 
either a free school lunch or a reduced price lunch. The reduced price 
lunch costs 40

[[Page 11882]]

cents per meal. While that may not seem like a lot to you or me, it can 
put a real strain on the finances of many low-income families who are 
struggling to make ends meet. Too often, school lunch administrators 
report seeing children who are able to buy lunch at the beginning of 
the month stop eating as the month goes on, merely because their 
families cannot afford to pay for that reduced price lunch as money 
gets tighter and tighter towards the end of the paycheck.
  The Child Nutrition Reauthorization Bill, a truly bipartisan bill 
that was signed into law last year, phases out the reduced price meal. 
Last year, thousands of anti-hunger activists roamed the halls of 
Capitol Hill with their blue and white ERP buttons on, and Congress 
responded. Now it is time to back up that promise and fully fund the 
effort to end the reduced price meal.
  Mr. Speaker, the fiscal year 2006 bill also provides funding for the 
International Food Aid Programs administered by the USDA. These 
programs provide emergency food aid to regions of the world that need 
help today. I am pleased that President Bush pledged to release $674 
million for humanitarian relief on the Horn of Africa. However, while 
it is important that the United States provide the funding for 
humanitarian relief around the world, the Committee on Appropriations 
must ensure that these funds are replenished for the following year.
  Unfortunately, this bill underfunds the Food for Peace Program, which 
is one of our most important food aid and development programs. I 
commend the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) for restoring $222 
million to this program above the President's request. But the program 
still remains $60 million below last year's level. While emergency 
funding was included in the tsunami relief package, we should not rely 
on emergency funding when we can properly fund this important program 
in the Agriculture Appropriations bill. Nor should we shortchange 
funding for the ongoing programs that are funded through the Food for 
Peace and other international food aid programs.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I also want to commend the gentleman from Texas 
(Chairman Bonilla) and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), for increasing funding for the George 
McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for Education and Child 
Nutrition Program. This program uses American commodities to provide 
school meals to hungry children around the world. It is named after two 
men who have led the fight against child hunger while they served in 
the United States Senate and as private citizens.
  Senator George McGovern is a dear friend of mine who has worked 
tirelessly on ending hunger over his decades of public service, and I 
cannot say enough about Senator Bob Dole's work on combating hunger 
here and abroad. He is a man of great integrity and someone who I 
respect immensely. I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to have the 
opportunity to work with his wife, Senator Elizabeth Dole, on a number 
of anti-hunger efforts.
  The McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child 
Nutrition Program is based on our own school lunch and breakfast 
program. It provides a nutritious meal for hungry children in a school 
setting. It has resulted in not only reducing child hunger abroad but 
in better schools and stronger community support for education in some 
of the poorest communities in the world. It is a successful program 
that is developing the long-term support of the Bush administration, 
and it deserves to be expanded.
  I am pleased that the Bush administration and the leadership in the 
House and Senate agree on the importance of the McGovern-Dole program. 
The President's budget has included an increase in funding for this 
program over each of the last 3 years; and, more importantly, the 
Congress has agreed in increased funding over the past 3 years.
  Mr. Speaker, while I believe the funding must be restored to $300 
million, the original level of the Global Food for Education 
Initiative, the pilot program that preceded the McGovern-Dole program, 
I am pleased that the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) and 
the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) have supported the 
President's request for increased funding of $100 million for fiscal 
year 2006.
  I am also encouraged by the level of commitment to the McGovern-Dole 
program in the Senate, and I am hopeful that funding for this program 
will be further increased when the Senate considers this bill later 
this year.
  Mr. Speaker, in December of 2004, 105 of our House colleagues sent a 
bipartisan letter to President Bush supporting the McGovern-Dole 
program. That letter is as follows:

                                Congress of the United States,

                                 Washington, DC, December 2, 2004.
     Hon. George W. Bush,
     President of the United States,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: We are writing to urge you to provide 
     $300 million in your Fiscal Year 2006 Budget Proposal for the 
     George McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for Education 
     and Child Nutrition Program. We believe it is urgent to 
     restore funding for this program at levels similar to those 
     of the original pilot program.
       We strongly believe this funding is critical for sustaining 
     and expanding the McGovern-Dole Program in order to combat 
     terrorism and to help build and consolidate democracy in the 
     Middle East, southern Asia, the Near East, and in other 
     regions critical to U.S. national security. As you are aware, 
     the McGovern-Dole Program provides donations of U.S. 
     agricultural products, as well as financial and technical 
     assistance, for school feeding and maternal and child 
     nutrition programs in low-income countries. We note that 
     recommendations made by the General Accounting Office (GAO) 
     in February 2002 on how to strengthen and improve the 
     administration and implementation of school feeding programs 
     were fully integrated into the law establishing the McGovern-
     Dole Program, enhancements that we believe have contributed 
     to its current success.
       Both the initial plot program and the current McGovern-Dole 
     Program have a proven track record at reducing the incidence 
     of hunger among school-age children and improving literacy 
     and primary education, especially among girls, in areas 
     devastated by war, hunger, poverty, HIV/AIDS, and the 
     mistreatment of women and girls. School meals, teacher 
     training, and related support have helped boost school 
     enrollment and academic performance. McGovern-Dole nutrition 
     and school feeding programs also improve the health and 
     learning capacity of children both before they enter school 
     and during the years of primary and elementary school
       In February 2003, the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
     evaluated the McGovern-Dole pilot program and found 
     significant positive results. Specifically--
       ``The results to date show measurable improvements in 
     school enrollment, including increased access by girls. In 
     projects involving more than 4,000 participating schools, the 
     WFP reports an overall enrollment increase exceeding 10 
     percent, with an 11.7 percent increase in enrollment by 
     girls. The PVO's report an overall enrollment increase of 
     5.75 percent in GFE-participating schools. In some projects, 
     increases in enrollment were as high as 32 percent compared 
     with enrollment rates over the previous three years.''

     (USDA, The Global Food for Education Pilot Program: A Review 
     of Project Implementation and Impact, page 2, February 2003)
       We firmly believe that these programs reduce the risk of 
     terrorism by helping to eliminate the hopelessness and 
     despair that breed terrorism. American products and 
     commodities are directly associated with hunger alleviation 
     and educational opportunity, encouraging support and good 
     will for the United States in these communities and 
     countries.
       We strongly urge that you restore the capacity of this 
     critically important program by providing $300 million for 
     Fiscal Year 2006.
           Sincerely,
         James P. McGovern, Nancy Pelosi, James A. Leach, Hilda L. 
           Solis, Todd Tiahrt, Ike Skelton, Jo Ann Emerson, Frank 
           R. Wolf, Tom Lantos, Donald A. Manzullo, Earl Pomeroy, 
           Marcy Kaptur, John Shimkus, George Miller, Roger F. 
           Wicker, Rosa L. DeLauro, Lynn C. Woolsey, Anthony D. 
           Weiner, Chris Van Hollen.
         Neil Abercrombie, Ron Kind, Sam Graves, Jose E. Serrano, 
           Albert R. Wynn, Robert Wexler, Maxine Waters, John F. 
           Tierney, Gary L. Ackerman, Robert E. Andrews, Earl 
           Blumenauer, Leonard L. Boswell, Corrine Brown, Michael 
           E. Capuano, Elijah E. Cummings, William D. Delahunt, 
           Bob Etheridge, Tammy Baldwin, Madeleine Z. Bordallo.
         Rick Boucher, Sherrod Brown, Joseph Crowley, Susan A. 
           Davis, Michael F. Doyle, James L. Oberstar, John W.

[[Page 11883]]

           Olver, David E. Price, Bobby L. Rush, Bernard Sanders, 
           Janice D. Schakowsky, Vic Snyder, Eni F. H. 
           Faleomavaega, Barney Frank, Donald M. Payne, Steven R. 
           Rothman, Martin Olav Sabo, Max Sandlin, Adam Smith, 
           Fortney Pete Stark.
         Bob Filner, Charles A. Gonzalez, Raul M. Grijalva, 
           Stephanie Herseth, Tim Holden, Eddie Bernice Johnson, 
           Rick Larsen, Stephen Lynch, Karen McCarthy, Jim 
           Marshall, Alcee L. Hastings, Maurice D. Hinchey, Sheila 
           Jackson-Lee, Dale E. Kildee, Barbara Lee, Carolyn 
           McCarthy, Carolyn B. Maloney, Jim Matheson, Betty 
           McCollum.
         Michael R. McNulty, Gregory W. Meeks, Dennis Moore, 
           Richard E. Neal, Jim McDermott, Sam Farr, Christopher 
           H. Smith, Martin T. Meehan, Juanita Millender-McDonald, 
           James P. Moran, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Thaddeus G. 
           McCotter, Major Owens, Linda T. Sanchez, Thomas H. 
           Allen, Doc Hastings, Patrick J. Kennedy, Edward J. 
           Markey, Brad Miller, and Sander M. Levin.

  Mr. Speaker, the following is a letter from Secretary of Agriculture 
Mike Johanns expressing his support for the McGovern-Dole program:

     Hon. James P. McGovern,
     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 successful 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 
     World 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. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) has crafted 
a bill that deserves to be supported today; and while there is room for 
improvement, I believe that the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) 
and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) 
and the Subcommittee on Agriculture of the Committee on Appropriations 
did the best they could with the limited resources they were given. 
Again, I thank my friend from Florida (Mr. Putnam).
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. McGovern) 
comments about hunger remind me of an old proverb. ``When there is 
food, there are many problems. When there is no food, there is only one 
problem.'' The gentleman speaks very passionately about that issue. It 
reminds me how fortunate we are that, because of the productivity of 
the American farmer and rancher, that Americans spend less of their 
disposable income on food than any other industrialized nation and our 
greatest threats in terms of childhood illnesses is obesity, not 
hunger. And I would not trade our problem for anybody else's.
  It is clearly a huge issue. I am proud of the work the appropriators 
have done in allocating $900 million through the emergency bill for 
those who were ravaged by the tsunami that struck southeast Asia.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me the time, and I rise in strong support of the rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  The Agriculture appropriations bill is being considered under an open 
rule that allows all Members to offer their amendments to this 
important piece of legislation, and I believe that all Members should 
be able to support this rule.
  I commend the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) and the other 
members of his committee for their work on this very important 
legislation. I would like to highlight a few of the provisions of 
particular importance to my district of West Virginia.
  Resource conservation and development councils across the country, 
including the Potomac Headwaters and Little Kanawha councils in my 
district, leverage very successfully Federal, State and local money 
with private sector dollars to support conservation and economic 
development activities in our rural communities. I think it is 
important to note that anytime a successful collaboration between all 
of the different governmental entities and private sector dollars is 
able to achieve results that we should recognize that, and I am pleased 
that this bill does so.
  These local councils have years of experience with development and 
conservation issues and understand the needs of our home areas. The 
heartfelt letters and phone calls that I receive from constituents and 
community leaders across West Virginia demonstrate the good work that 
RC&D councils are doing. I thank the Committee on Appropriations for 
rejecting the plan to end the Resource Conservation and Development 
program and instead fully fund the local councils at last year's level.
  Also, I want to thank the committee for restoring formula funds for 
the Hatch Act, the McIntire-Stennis program, and the Animal Health 
Disease program and rejecting proposals to turn these funds into 
competitive grants.
  West Virginia University has a very successful extension service that 
does an outstanding job of researching problems facing farmers in my 
State and across the Nation. Every State has an extension service 
devoted to solving agriculture programs in their local areas.
  Switching to a competitive grant system would have jeopardized the 
ability of local extension services to deal with local plant disease or 
animal health problems.
  This appropriations bill also provides a $630 million increase for 
the Child Nutrition program. In West Virginia, my home State, 145,000 
children received free or reduced school lunches this past year. That 
is more than half of our State's K through 12 total enrollment. It is 
important that we maintain this funding for this important program.
  For these reasons and many others, I think it is extremely important 
that not only do we pass the rule but we also pass the good hard work 
of the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, and 
their efforts to preserve and enrich the programs that are feeding not 
only our country but other countries and developing the research to 
find other ways to maximize our resources.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page 11884]]

  Before I yield to our next speaker, I would just like to respond to 
something the gentleman from Florida had said in his comments on 
hunger.
  As I should point out to the gentleman, there are 36 million people 
in the United States of America who are hungry, and every single one of 
us in this Chamber should be ashamed of that fact. We can do better.
  He mentioned the problem of obesity. I should point out to the 
gentleman that there is a relationship, believe it or not, between 
malnutrition and hunger and obesity. A lot of the cases of obesity are 
directly related to the fact that a lot of families cannot afford to 
put a decent meal on the table. So these kids end up eating junk food, 
and it results in the obesity problem.
  We have a huge problem here. We should not minimize it, and we have a 
long way to go.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
for yielding me time and for all the effort and attention the committee 
has paid to this important bill on agriculture and the Food and Drug 
Administration.
  I just might say to the gentleman from Massachusetts, I, too, want to 
applaud his passion and his diligence and vigilance on the issue of 
hunger and how it affects our children and families in the United 
States and internationally. I thank him for leading the way for us.
  I also want to compliment the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) 
on working under very difficult circumstances to deliver this bill on 
the floor and for working across the aisle. His staff, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) staff and mine have worked diligently to 
get us here today, and I thank all of them for their service and for 
their patience.
  This bill, unfortunately, falls short in filling the needs in rural 
America and in fully protecting our public health. While I believe that 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) has done his best with a 
difficult allocation, regrettably there are shortfalls. We have barely 
maintained the same funding level as last year, $16.8 billion, in 
discretionary funds; and we all know that there are increased benefit 
costs and salary increases that need to be accounted for in that 
number. A stable number does not mean a stable agriculture and food and 
drug effort by our government.
  The chairman had to make up for a huge gap in the administration's 
proposal when it included an unauthorized user fee of $139 million in 
the budget. Finding that amount of money to keep our extremely 
important food safety efforts for meat and poultry operating was not an 
easy task. It certainly forced the chairman to leave other needs unmet 
at USDA.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, the bill still does not include enough 
funding to cover the food security needs of the elderly under the 
Commodity Supplemental Food program. There are hundreds of millions 
more pending requests for building and repairing water and sewer 
systems and for conserving our precious soil and water resources.
  The Commodity Supplemental Food program operating in 32 States and 
providing surplus food commodities to seniors and to families of young 
children who no longer qualify for any other help, but who have hungry 
young ones to feed, is predicted to have to stop feeding at least 
45,000 people with the current level of funding in this account.
  At the same time, USDA resources are essential so that our 
agricultural base is not harmed by outbreaks of diseases such as 
soybean rust or bovine spongiform encephalopathy, BSE or mad cow. 
United States agriculture is not isolated, and we need to remain 
vigilant and steady in our support of scientific research institutions 
in our prevention efforts and in our strategic planning and 
coordination for these types of challenges to our food supply and our 
health.
  In the natural resources area, the bill is $52 million below last 
year. Water and waste grants, so critical to public health and economic 
growth for our rural communities, are funded below 2004.
  The agriculture community has so many important needs, from commodity 
support to export promotion, from building new community facilities in 
rural areas to conserving farm land, and by combating animal and plant 
diseases and protecting human health, by enforcing our food safety laws 
and maintaining basic nutrition for our citizens. Rural areas are not 
always places with high tax bases and young working people. Rather, we 
know 90 percent of the country's poorest counties are in rural America, 
and these counties have a poverty rate that is a disturbing 14.2 
percent. If we want these areas to begin to prosper again, we have to 
help them with infrastructure and community-building.
  Some forget that another important public health agency is also 
funded in this bill, the Food and Drug Administration within the 
Department of Health and Human Services. Again, the chairman has done a 
good job in trying to find funding for this budget for the Food and 
Drug Administration.
  This year, the subcommittee was deprived of the opportunity to hear 
from the Acting Commissioner of FDA due to what we understand was 
intervention from the administration. This meant that we had to work on 
their portion of the bill without being able to ask questions that we 
would ordinarily have used to learn about their current operations. 
Nevertheless, with the gentleman from Texas' (Mr. Bonilla) help, we 
have started down a road to building some additional resources for drug 
safety and the possibility of more effective oversight of postmarket 
prescription drugs, by increasing the resources of the office that 
performs direct-to-consumer advertising claims reviews.
  FDA is an agency that has demonstrated itself to be in crisis over 
the last year. We had an influenza outbreak predicted, but we were 
surprised to learn that another government's regulatory system had 
found the flu vaccine supply on which we were counting to be flawed.
  Drugs like Vioxx and Bextra that scientists at FDA knew were causing 
illness and death were permitted to remain on the market and be 
advertized well beyond the point that they should have been voluntarily 
withdrawn or forced off the market.
  Companies that had promised to perform postmarket studies in return 
for early introduction of their products failed miserably in keeping 
their promises without penalty.
  However, I am pleased that the subcommittee took action on this 
matter by fencing off 5 percent of the appropriation to the leadership 
offices of FDA until the head of the agency testifies before our 
subcommittee. This is a very important provision to maintain in this 
bill until we get some answers.
  I am also pleased that the subcommittee adopted an amendment 
addressing the reimportation of FDA-approved prescription drugs from 
FDA-approved facilities from Canada and other developed countries so 
that our people can buy them at affordable prices. This House has 
expressed its will on this issue over and over again, most recently 
with a letter signed by a bipartisan majority of the House to the 
Speaker, and we want to be able to keep this provision in the bill 
through conference.
  I thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) for his 
willingness to work across the aisle to replace many of the cuts sent 
up by the President. We know that we cannot meet all the actual needs 
that are out in the country; but this bill is a valiant effort, given 
the budget parameters.
  I know there will be several amendments offered today, especially on 
behalf of enhanced civil rights and solutions to regional or specific 
problems. I believe that debate will be a healthy one, and I look 
forward to it.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), our distinguished majority whip.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time,

[[Page 11885]]

and I rise today in support of the rule and in support of the gentleman 
from Texas' (Chairman Bonilla) efforts on the underlying bill.
  I also in my remarks today want to urge my colleagues to retain the 
chairman's language on mandatory country-of-origin labeling, more 
commonly known as COOL, C-O-O-L. This is clearly a marketing issue, not 
a food safety issue, and puts an unnecessary burden on producers, 
processors, and consumers if not handled in exactly the right way.
  The Agriculture Department has estimated the costs of the current 
mandatory country-of-origin labeling program could be as much as $4 
billion in the first year alone. Assuming that producers figure out a 
way to pass along that $4 billion, that $4 billion is $4 billion added 
at grocery stores to shopping-cart prices, and then they talk about a 
cost of several hundred million dollars a year in the years after the 
first year.
  With so many unanswered questions, now is not the time for this 
mandate. For example, when COOL goes into effect beginning on September 
30, 2006, how will we treat the cattle, hogs and lambs and sheep that 
were born before that date? Is there any legal market for these 
hundreds of thousands of animals that are out there on farms and in 
farming facilities right now? Until we find out the answer to problems 
like this, there is no reason to move forward with this costly mandate 
that puts a disproportionate share of the cost on the producer.
  A much better approach is for Congress to approve a voluntary program 
and place control in the hands of consumers at the marketplace. It is 
for this reason that I have joined the fight with the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), who is our Committee on Agriculture 
authorizing chairman, on our voluntary country-of-origin legislation 
that would permanently make the country-of-origin legislation a 
voluntary program for meat and meat products, not, Mr. Speaker, for 
vegetables, for fruit, for other products, but for meat and meat 
products, products that have a longer life, products that are more 
mobile, and products that in many cases are going to be already in the 
hands of producers, on the farms of producers before September 30, 
2006, with potentially no legal way to sell those products.
  Voluntary labeling, on the other hand, would give producers added 
market value rather than a costly Federal mandate. Voluntary COOL would 
ultimately give consumers, not the Federal Government, control of 
country- of-origin labeling for products. The voluntary labeling 
program would add value throughout the food chain, including the 
producer as well as the consumer.

                              {time}  1200

  Voluntary COOL would also create a brand for products of the United 
States and encourage consumers to buy American meats where they shop. 
The label would add value to American agricultural products. 
Voluntarily labeling beef, pork, lamb and other meat products is a 
better way to need the needs of consumers and promote American 
agricultural products without the enormous costs and burdens of a 
mandatory law.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's work product, the bill 
which has been brought to the floor, and the hard work he has done on 
this issue and urge my colleagues to support the chairman's efforts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Slaughter).
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, as we debate the agriculture 
appropriations bill today, we will consider funding for the Food and 
Drug Administration. I am very disappointed that the Hinchey FDA reform 
amendment will not be allowed under this rule. The amendment would give 
the Food and Drug Administration two new authorities that are badly 
needed to improve the FDA's drug safety operations and ensure that FDA 
has the tools to take timely action to protect Americans from unsafe 
drugs.
  It would have empowered the FDA with the authority to require 
companies to conduct post-marketing studies of FDA-approved drugs and 
would also have given the FDA the authority to mandate changes to the 
labels of FDA-approved drugs. Unfortunately, efforts to include the 
amendment were defeated in the Committee on Rules on a party-line vote.
  I am deeply concerned about the FDA's handling, or rather their 
mishandling, of the consideration to allow emergency contraception to 
be sold over the counter. For almost 100 years, the FDA has overseen 
the safety of food, cosmetics, drugs, and medical devices consumed by 
the American public, but we cannot trust them unconditionally any more.
  The agency defines itself as a scientific, regulatory and public 
health agency. But for what appears to be the first time in the 
agency's history, the FDA has jettisoned the rigorous standards of 
science and health in evaluating emergency contraception and has 
instead taken the counsel of religious and political extremists in its 
consideration of this important pregnancy-preventive drug.
  And the results of such counsel have been predictable. Despite the 
fact that 23 of 27 members of the FDA's advisory panel voted in favor 
of allowing over-the-counter sales of Barr Laboratories' Plan B 
emergency contraceptive and despite the overwhelming scientific 
evidence in support of the application, the FDA made the unusual 
decision to disregard its own advisory panel's recommendation and 
reject the application.
  One of the dissenting panelists was evangelical conservative Dr. W. 
David Hager. In October of 2002, I sent a letter to President Bush 
expressing my deep reservations about appointing Dr. Hager as Chair of 
the Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs at the FDA. Based 
on Dr. Hager's past conduct, I believed he would not be impartial in 
his decisions. On numerous occasions, Dr. Hager had already displayed a 
willingness to substitute his personal beliefs for science. My request, 
unfortunately, went unheeded by the administration.
  Now recent reports have alleged that the FDA, while considering 
allowing over-the-counter sales of emergency contraceptive, requested a 
minority opinion by Dr. Hager to justify a politically motivated 
decision to Barr Laboratories' application, a truly outrageous request 
which, if true, has further jeopardized the scientific integrity of the 
FDA.
  Clearly the standards of science and the interest of public health 
have taken a back seat to the political agenda of extremist 
politicians.
  The scientific facts irrefutably show that emergency contraception is 
a safe and effective way for women to prevent unintended pregnancies. 
Emergency contraception has been available in the United States by 
prescription since the late 1990s. It does not cause abortion. Instead, 
it stops the release of the eggs from the ovary and prevents unwanted 
pregnancy. If preventing unwanted pregnancy is something we support, no 
matter what our individual positions are on a woman's reproductive 
freedom, we should be outraged by this lack of science behind this 
decision.
  Effectively preventing unwanted pregnancies is clearly the best way 
to reduce the number of abortions, and if my colleagues care about 
that, they must recognize this fundamental truth.
  The Alan Guttmacher Institute estimates that increased use of 
emergency contraceptives accounted for up to 43 percent of the total 
decline in abortions between 1994 and the year 2000. In addition, 
emergency contraception is often the only option for the 300,000 women 
who are raped each year. It is widely recognized as an integral part of 
comprehensive and compassionate emergency treatment for sexual assault 
survivors.
  The bottom line here is that over-the-counter approval is the single 
most effective tool we have to reduce unwanted pregnancies in America, 
but one man is holding it up. Anyone really serious about reducing the 
number of abortions will support making it available. There are two 
only sides of this line Members can be on. They either want to stop 
apportions or reduce them, or they do not.

[[Page 11886]]

  As we await again a decision on Barr Laboratories, a decision the FDA 
promised in January but has not given us yet, I urge them to base this 
and future decision on science, not politics. It is time the FDA 
recognizes it must be more accountable to the American public to make 
the best decisions possible based on scientific evidence which is what 
they are for. They just do not do that anymore.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this Congress is owned lock, stock and barrel 
by the pharmaceutical industry. That was made obvious on passage of the 
so-called Medicare drug benefit last year when the majority party 
rammed through this place, after a 3-hour wait, a provision which 
prevented the Federal Government from negotiating with the drug 
industry to require lower drug prices under the Medicare program.
  Another piece of evidence of the ownership of this Congress by that 
industry is the fact that this House will not be voting today on an 
amendment that would give the FDA the enhanced ability to change the 
label on drugs that have already been approved if later studies 
demonstrate that those labels need to be changed.
  I had a member of my family who almost died because of Vioxx. She 
took that drug at the suggestion of a doctor, and it virtually ruined 
her liver. She does not drink alcohol, and yet when the doctor examined 
her he told her that she effectively had the liver of a 65-year-old 
chronic alcoholic because of what Vioxx had done to her.
  It took 14 months for the FDA to be able to change Vioxx labeling.
  Any Congress with any guts whatsoever would have had on this floor a 
long time ago legislation to give FDA that authority, but that is a big 
money lobby, and they sure pass it around. Last year, they had 500 
lobbyists telling this Congress what to do on the Medicare prescription 
drug bill. They may as well have had a baby-sitter for every Member of 
Congress. That is how many lobbyists they had running around Capitol 
Hill.
  On that bill on that issue, instead of being the greatest legislative 
body in the world, Capitol Hill was effectively a trash heap.
  I intend to vote for this bill because I think the chairman has done 
a reasonable job with limited resources, but I do not intend to vote 
for this rule if there is a rollcall because I think this rule should 
have made the Hinchey amendment in order. It is about time that this 
institution and the President of the United States starts talking about 
and dealing with issues that the American people care about, rather 
than issues that we care about in terms of our internal operations, 
such as the filibuster in the Senate or these other nonsense issues 
that are really inside baseball.
  Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to get that off my chest so in case there 
is a rollcall on the rule, Members will know why I voted against it.
  I also want to raise one other point. We are not starting on the bill 
itself until some time after 12. We had other filler on the floor here 
today before we got to this appropriations bill. There are 11 must-pass 
bills a session, all of them appropriation bills. We have been asked on 
the minority side of the aisle, even though we regard most of those 
bills as being inadequate, we have been asked to provide procedural 
cooperation in order to facilitate the ability of the majority to do 
the House's work, and we have provided that procedural cooperation. But 
I have to say I get very frustrated when we are told that the Committee 
on Appropriations has to be prepared to work until 10 or 11 tonight 
because you have certain Members of Congress off on a golfing 
tournament this morning and early this afternoon.
  I resent the fact that there are not going to be any votes until 
after 2 so a few of our colleagues can go off and golf while we are 
here trying to slog through the 11 appropriation bills that have to 
pass before this Congress can adjourn. I do not raise that fact because 
I am a lousy golfer, although I am. I raise that fact simply because 
sooner or later it would be nice if this place puts the public's 
business first and puts appropriation bills first rather than dragging 
in other legislation that is put on the floor simply to delay the time 
before the Committee on Appropriations gets to the amendment stage of 
its bills.
  So, with all due respect, I will vote for this bill, but I think the 
process by which we have gotten to this bill is a sorry one.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Respecting the gentleman's right to get off his chest whatever he 
chooses to get off of his chest, I would point out that the 
appropriations process is far ahead of schedule, and we are on track to 
complete the program of passing the bills through the House before July 
4.
  I would also point out our appreciation to the gentleman for his 
support for the bill and recognition of the hard work the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and his subcommittee have put in to an 
outstanding agriculture appropriation bill, and appreciate the fact 
that, despite his misgivings about the process, he likes the work 
product that this committee has produced.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time to speak on the rule.
  I favor the rule. It will enable us today later in the debate to 
consider an amendment that, if approved, will reduce by 6 percent the 
sugar subsidy that we have under our current system.
  We will hear in the course of this debate how the current sugar 
subsidization is a serious misallocation of resources to a few large 
farmers and agribusiness interests when we are unable to meet the needs 
under the ag bill for America's small- and medium-sized farmers.
  We will learn how the current policies damage the environment, 
especially in the Everglades. The Everglades are polluted from the 
practice of cane sugar production, threatening drinking water for south 
Florida, maritime habitat is seriously damaged, and makes the $8 
billion down payment that we have made on the cleanup of the Everglades 
harder, larger and ultimately more expensive.
  The current policies violate our own principles of free trade. Forty-
one other sugar-producing countries cannot compete with the lavishly 
subsidized American market, where they are largely excluded, 
particularly for poor countries. It makes our free trade arguments 
hypocritical.

                              {time}  1215

  It is costing American consumers with this unjustified subsidy, 
forcing them to pay two or three times the world price for sugar. And 
it is costing jobs. There are seven times more businesses that use 
sugar than produce sugar and is forcing them, I see my colleague from 
Illinois here, where the confectionery industry in Illinois is being 
driven across the border to Canada because the raw material is so much 
cheaper.
  There will be an opportunity, thankfully, to discuss this under an 
open rule, and I am hopeful that we will take this small step to put a 
little sanity in the way we treat sugar.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my thanks to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. 
DeLauro). This is a very good bill. I am privileged to be on this 
subcommittee and to serve with two distinguished leaders, the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut and the gentleman from Texas. They both 
have worked very hard together. This is a very good bill for 
agriculture. It is a very good bill for our farmers. I represent 
farmers in central Illinois who produce a lot of food and fiber for the 
world, particularly corn and beans.
  One of the things that the chairman and ranking member have done has

[[Page 11887]]

also really put a lot of emphasis on the research title, providing the 
research dollars to places like the University of Illinois in Champaign 
and to the ag research lab. I have one of the four ag research labs in 
the country in my hometown of Peoria. They do great work there. They 
collaborate with many different people in the community to really think 
outside of the box about how we take the food and fiber that we produce 
and the commodities we produce and stretch them into many different 
opportunities for farmers, and also for researchers. We have some of 
the smartest people that work in the ag research lab in Peoria. They 
could not do their work without the kind of dollars that are provided 
through this bill. The chairman has really done an extraordinary job in 
working with all the members of the subcommittee and the committee, 
really, to reach out and try to provide the dollars that are necessary.
  This is a very good bill for agriculture. It is a good bill for 
America. I ask all Members to support the rule and ultimately to 
support the bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for this bill which I think is a good 
bill despite an unsatisfactory allocation. I think this bill deserves 
support by all our colleagues. However, I would respectfully suggest 
that this Congress in the future focus more on alleviating hunger and 
poverty in this country.
  Yesterday was National Hunger Awareness Day. There were thousands of 
people that descended on Capitol Hill from all over the country urging 
Congress to do more. I hope we will do more. They are right. There is 
much more for us to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his comments. His 
passion for ending hunger in this country is laudable. This is a fair 
rule. It is an open rule. With the exception of those amendments that 
are legislating on an appropriations bill, anyone can come down here 
and have the opportunity to make their case for changes. So while 
Members have been here expressing frustrations about certain policy 
issues, there has been widespread agreement, including from the 
gentleman on the Rules Committee and including from the distinguished 
ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations and the ranking 
member of the subcommittee. There has been a general agreement of 
support for the underlying bill that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Bonilla) has produced. I am glad to see that type of bipartisan 
cooperation that has not been given the credit that is due here in 
Washington.
  This is a great bill for America's resources and for the conservation 
element that America's farmers and ranchers are so vital in 
participating in. It provides the necessary framework for disaster 
programs and commodity programs that allow us to continue to provide 
the safest, cheapest, most wholesome food supply in abundance in the 
world with a very small percentage of our population; and it allows us 
to continue to be in the forefront of technology and research and 
development, continuing to be on the cutting edge of having greater 
production, greater yields on fewer acres in the most environmentally 
conscious manner possible, in addition to dealing with our nutrition 
issues, our women, infant and children issues and school lunch programs 
and the other important issues for our underserved in this country.
  It is a great bill, Mr. Speaker. I encourage this entire House to 
support the rule and the underlying bill.
  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.

                          ____________________