[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9201-9206]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5384, AGRICULTURE, RURAL 
    DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 830 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 830

       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. 5384) making appropriations for Agriculture, 
     Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, 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 for 
     sections 749, 751, and 752. 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. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) 
is recognized for 1 hour.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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 830 is an open rule providing 1 hour of 
general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of H.R. 
5384, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration 
and Related Agencies Appropriation Act of 2007. Under the rules of the 
House, the bill shall be read for amendment by paragraph.
  House Resolution 830 waives points of order provisions in the bill 
for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI prohibiting 
unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in an 
appropriation bill, except as specified in the resolution.
  The rule 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 proud that yesterday the House Rules Committee 
reported by voice vote an open rule for consideration of H.R. 5384, the 
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2007.
  As with most appropriation bills, the Rules Committee has once again 
afforded Members an opportunity to offer amendments to this legislation 
that comply with the rules of the House. Members of the House may bring 
forth an idea or change they wish to see and express their views on how 
our Nation should prioritize its spending.
  Mr. Speaker, the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee reported out 
a bill that provides important resources for the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture and various other agencies. Specifically, H.R. 5384 makes 
available nearly $95 billion to fund agriculture, rural development, 
drug safety, food nutrition programs for the fiscal year 2007.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation provides the funding necessary for the 
programs and activities of USDA while at the same time maintaining 
fiscal discipline and reflecting our Nation's priority spending needs.
  Mr. Speaker, the USDA carries out widely varied responsibilities 
through about 30 separate internal agencies and offices staffed by some 
100,000 employees. Important programs covered under the agriculture 
spending bill include the food nutrition programs such as the Food 
Stamp Program, the Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children or 
WIC, and child nutrition programs, farm and foreign agricultural 
services, certain mandatory conservation and trade programs, crop 
insurance, farm loans, foreign food aid programs.
  Additionally, it includes natural resources and environmental 
conservation programs and food safety and rural development activities. 
The underlying bill provides essential funding for agriculture research 
activities which include USDA's Agriculture Research Service as well as 
university research and extension programs.
  I have visited, Mr. Speaker, several agricultural research centers in 
central Washington, and I am impressed by the innovative work being 
accomplished to equip farmers with the tools they need to improve the 
quality and production of their agricultural products.
  Agriculture research enables American farmers to reap the benefits of 
science and technology they need to remain competitive in an ever-
changing international marketplace. H.R. 5384 also provides several 
programs that seek to protect human health and safety.
  Avian flu pandemic countermeasures and monitoring are funded at $80 
million. The Food Safety and Inspection Service is funded at $853 
million. The Animal Plant and Health Service Inspection Service 
activities are funded at $904 million, with $90 million going to BSE 
detection and prevention activities.
  One program of importance to farmers in my area of central Washington 
is the Department of Agriculture's Market Access Program, which is 
aimed at creating, expanding and maintaining foreign markets for U.S. 
agriculture products through consumer promotions, market research and 
technical assistance.
  One of the biggest challenges facing American agriculture, especially 
the

[[Page 9202]]

specialty crops, is the need to expand overseas markets in the face of 
often subsidized foreign competition. By opening foreign markets to 
American agricultural products and breaking down trade barriers, the 
Market Access Programs help local farmers and our Nation's economy, 
while improving our balance of trade and creating jobs.
  I am pleased that the underlying bill fully funds the Market Access 
Program, which is particularly important for many of the specialty 
crops that I mentioned, including apples, cherries, hops, pears, 
potatoes and wine grapes.
  With a proven track record of success, it is clear that this 
program's return on investment is far greater than the cost of the 
Market Access Program to the Federal Government.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a fiscally responsible bill that will help 
American farmers and ranchers respond to the challenges of the global 
market and provide a wholesome food supply for our Nation. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in support of House Resolution 830, and the open 
rule provided by the Rules Committee by a voice vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Washington, my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, 
and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman Bonilla and Ranking Member 
DeLauro for working together on this important bill. They have taken 
the President's inadequate budget proposal and made it better.
  Chairman Bonilla and his staff deserve to be congratulated for doing 
the right thing with this bill. And Ranking Member DeLauro and the 
Democratic members of the Appropriations Committee, including Ranking 
Member Obey, deserve credit for improving the chairman's mark.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to highlight some of the 
very important antihunger programs in this bill that make a real 
difference in the lives of millions of people here in the United States 
and around the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to be a cochair of the Congressional 
Hunger Center and of the Hunger Caucus. I have seen how important our 
anti-hunger programs are to low-income Americans. I have met families 
who, through no fault of their own, have to rely on Federal anti-hunger 
programs to put food on their table.
  In my own district, I am working with State and local officials to 
make sure every eligible person in need signs up and receives these 
important benefits so that central Massachusetts and southeastern 
Massachusetts is made up of hunger-free communities.
  On the Federal level, we must continue to fight for critical anti-
hunger programs. In his budget, the President eliminated the Commodity 
Supplemental Food Program, which provides food to low-income mothers 
and children under 6 years of age, as well as America's elderly poor. 
Literally hundreds of thousands of people would have been left to fend 
for themselves if this program had been shut down, as the President had 
requested.
  Thankfully, Chairman Bonilla and Ranking Member DeLauro not only 
restored the funding eliminated by President Bush, they also provided 
an increase of $11 million over last year's level. I believe my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle are thankful that this bill 
includes a $40 million increase for the WIC Program over last year's 
allocation, or $44 million more than the President's request.
  WIC is one of the most successful domestic maternal and infant health 
and nutrition programs in the history of the United States. I am 
troubled, however, that funding in this bill for the child nutrition 
programs is below the President's request and that funding for the food 
stamp program is almost $3 million less than last year, at a time when 
more and more and more people are falling below the poverty line.
  Mr. Speaker, even though I believe the funding levels for anti-hunger 
programs should be increased even more than what this bill was able to 
provide, I am more concerned that the administration and Congress 
continue to lack a cohesive anti-hunger, antipoverty strategy.
  Mr. Speaker, I know the Agriculture Appropriations Act is not the 
most appropriate bill to establish such a policy, but it is the vehicle 
that ultimately funds many of the important and most fundamental 
programs that help lift people out of poverty. I believe we can end 
hunger and poverty, if only we have the political will to do so.
  I challenge my colleagues in this chamber to do more. And it will not 
necessarily cost a great deal more, but it will take far better 
coordination of public and private efforts. It will take a concerted 
effort by the Federal Government, and it will take the heart and 
compassion of a great Nation to eradicate poverty and hunger in the 
United States once and for all.
  I believe in the heart of the American people. I think we saw that 
heart after Katrina. I think we see that heart every time there is a 
crisis abroad and children are in need.
  Mr. Speaker, over the next year, I hope we all rise to the occasion 
and commit to this worthy and necessary goal. Overall, Mr. Speaker, I 
believe this bill should be commended for restoring funding for many of 
our most important domestic hunger and nutrition programs.
  Regrettably, due once again to the extreme limits on the Agriculture 
Appropriations Bill, the same cannot be said of international hunger 
and good aid programs. The committee was able to maintain last year's 
funding levels, but so much more is needed.
  The George McGovern-Bob Dole International Food for Education Program 
is basically frozen at last year's levels. This was done despite a 
bipartisan letter from over 100 Members of Congress asking that funding 
for the McGovern program be restored to its fiscal year 2001 level of 
$300 million.
  This bill provides only one-third of that amount. McGovern-Dole has 
proven itself time and time again to be one of our most effective tools 
in reducing hunger in school-aged children, and increasing attendance 
and academic performance, especially among girls in some of the poorest 
places in the world.
  I know that the committee supports this program. I just hope that the 
chairman and the ranking member will find a way in conference 
negotiations to increase the funding for this program so that it can 
reach more children in the neediest communities in the developing 
world.
  Mr. Speaker, I also regret that P.L. 480, title II, food for peace, 
emergency food aid and development programs, have also basically been 
level-funded, although I do appreciate that the committee did find a 
few additional dollars for this program. In fiscal year 2006, Congress 
has ostensibly provided $1.218 billion for title II, and this bill 
provides $1.226 billion for title II.
  Unfortunately, what is hidden by these figures is that, for the past 
3 years, the Congress has ended up appropriating about $1.5 billion 
each year so that title II can meet global food emergencies. This year 
is no exception. In the fiscal year 2006 emergency supplemental, which 
is currently awaiting House-Senate conference negotiations, there is 
about $350 million in title II emergency food aid; $225 million of that 
emergency food aid is for the humanitarian crisis in Darfur.
  If the President had put those funds in last year's regular budget 
request, and Congress had approved and appropriated those funds in the 
regular agriculture appropriations bill, then that food would be on its 
way to the people of Darfur today.
  Instead, the World Food Programme has been forced to cut food rations 
in half for 2.6 million Darfur refugees and displaced people.
  Why should we care about this? Well, Mr. Speaker, as a Congress, we 
should care because this is deceptive budgeting, and poor planning 
hinders our ability to respond to emergencies as they arise. But more 
importantly, much more importantly, we should care because people are 
dying from lack of food because we do not have the funding in hand that 
we knew ahead of time we would need for fiscal year 2006 and that we 
should plan now to have in hand for fiscal year 2007.
  We know emergencies happen. We know we have been appropriating

[[Page 9203]]

about $300 million or more each year for the past 3 years in 
supplemental appropriations bills to meet those needs. Let us do the 
right thing and build such funds into our planning process.
  Put those funds in the regular budget and include and approve them in 
the regular agriculture appropriations bill. Let me be clear, Mr. 
Speaker. No country in the world has been as responsive to 
international food emergencies as the United States.
  No other country even comes close to our generosity. The United 
States has been and continues to be the leader in providing food and 
humanitarian aid for Darfur. It is past time that the rest of the world 
step up to the plate.
  The funds sitting in the fiscal year 2006 supplemental will not reach 
the President's desk until June. And therefore the food aid itself will 
not reach the people of Darfur until November. If USAID had those 
moneys now up front, the ration cuts in Darfur would not be happening, 
period. I appeal to the President. I appeal to the appropriators and to 
the leadership of this House, do not repeat this mistake in 2007. We 
need to plan ahead.
  Somehow, before this bill comes back to us as a conference report, we 
need to find a way to substantially increase Title II funding so that 
we are not robbing food aid from one hungry family to feed another 
simply because we failed to provide the necessary funding to plan for 
and to meet global food emergencies.
  Mr. Speaker, I know the committee cannot do this on its own, which is 
why I make a plea for all of us to work this problem out, so that we 
are not faced with such desperate choices next year.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. Speaker, Chairman Bonilla, Ranking Member DeLauro, and their 
colleagues on the committee should be commended for their hard work on 
this bill. They have done the best they could despite the difficult 
choices that face them in this process. They deserve our respect and 
gratitude.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking Democrat on the 
Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I had originally intended to vote for this bill and for 
this rule; but the action of the Rules Committee on one item last night 
has changed all of that, at least for me, and I would like to alert 
Members of the House as to the reasons why.
  In the farm bill that passed several years ago, the expiration date 
for various programs wound up not being identical; and that meant that 
the dairy program was hugely at a disadvantage after the expiration of 
the dairy title of the farm bill. Last year the Congress renewed the 
dairy section of the bill that related to the milk program, but it 
contained a budget gimmick which ended the dairy program one month 
before the end of the fiscal year and one month before the other farm 
programs in that bill.
  As a result, when the next farm program is put together next year, 
dairy will be at a huge disadvantage because there will be nothing 
included in the budget baseline for dairy. That will not only be a 
problem for dairy farmers; that will be a problem for all other 
farmers, because if in the end the Congress decides under those 
circumstances to extend the milk program, the funding for that will 
come out of the hide of each and every other farm program, all because 
of this 1-month gimmick that we tried to correct in the Appropriations 
Committee.
  Now, the Appropriations Committee adopted an amendment that I offered 
last week which attempted to correct that problem by simply extending 
the milk program by 1 month so that it would expire at the same time as 
the other programs in the farm bill. But now our friends on the 
authorizing committee have insisted that the Rules Committee not 
protect that provision from being stricken on a point of order. As a 
result, if such a motion is made and upheld by the Chair, it will mean 
that we are going to create the conditions for a billion dollar war 
between farm groups all over this country. That could easily be avoided 
by the $40 million provision represented by section 752 of the 
appropriations bill that will shortly be before us.
  That $40 million correction is fully paid for so that at this point 
there is no budget problem associated with 752. So I would simply want 
to alert every Member of this House who represents dairy farmers that 
they will be at a substantial disadvantage in considering the farm bill 
a year and a half from now if this section 752 of this bill is 
stricken.
  And I want to alert Members who represent other kinds of farmers that 
lest they think this is only a problem only affecting dairy farmers, 
I'm sorry, it will affect all farmers because financing for whatever 
dairy program that eventually emerges from that authorization bill will 
come out of reductions for other farm programs.
  Now, this may not be a big problem for persons who have thousand-cow 
dairy herds, but it is a huge problem if you represent a district like 
mine where the average herd is 50 or 60 cows. The extension to the milk 
program will determine whether or not many of those farmers stay in 
business. And I would submit that the House would be doing itself a 
great favor if they could prevail upon our friends on the authorizing 
committee not to lodge a point of order against this provision in this 
bill.
  There is another provision in this bill which affects an extension of 
the peanut program for storage. It seems to me that there are good 
reasons for extending both of those programs. So I would urge any 
Member of this House who is concerned about being able to pass a decent 
farm bill down the line to recognize that if this action takes place 
today, if this action takes place today, anyone who votes for the farm 
bill, if this is stricken today, anyone who votes for this agriculture 
appropriations bill will be voting to put dairy farmers at a huge 
disadvantage a year and a half from now when the reauthorization is 
considered and they will be inviting a very nasty war between different 
commodity groups and different regions of the country.
  That is what the milk program sought to end 3 years ago when we 
wanted to end all of these regional fights on dairy, and I would 
suggest that the House would be ill advised if it produces that result 
by allowing this provision to be knocked out on a point of order.
  So I will be calling for a roll call on the rule to protest the 
action of the Rules Committee, and I will urge Members from farm 
country to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the bill if that 
provision is stricken.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the distinguished ranking 
member of the Appropriations Committee, but we have a long-standing 
tradition in the Rules Committee that when the authorizing committee 
has a problem with amendments or policies that are put on the 
Appropriations Committee that they feel is under their jurisdiction, 
they ask that that not be protected. That was the case here as you 
pointed out in your remarks with the peanut program and the milk 
program.
  So as you suggested, if somebody from the Agriculture Committee or 
the chairman stands up and asks for a point of order then, of course, 
the Chair will have to make his ruling by what the rules are.
  I will also say this, and I know that the gentleman from Wisconsin 
has been working just because of the nature of his committee on a lot 
of milk programs, I too have a lot of dairies in my district. There has 
been a gravitation towards those dairies in my district. When I talk to 
my dairy farmers, I have essentially one message for them and that 
message is at some point, and I know this is a very difficult thing to 
do, but at some point the dairy industry in this country has got to try 
to speak with one voice as much as they

[[Page 9204]]

possibly can. I know that is very, very difficult. They are cognizant 
of that.
  When this provision was put in place several years ago, there was an 
attempt to do that. So we will have to see. But the Rules Committee has 
a tradition and that is the reason why we did not protect that portion 
of the 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 would like to take just a moment to thank Chairman 
Bonilla and Ranking Member DeLauro and members of the committee for 
providing funding for the Congressional Hunger Center. The Hunger 
Center is co-chaired by my colleague Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson and 
myself, and it trains young people to be the future leaders of the 
anti-hunger movement. The Congressional Hunger Center, I think, is 
known to most Members of this Chamber. It has an incredible staff, an 
excellent staff, and does a very good job in raising awareness and 
getting young people involved and getting them to feel passionate about 
combating hunger, not only here in the United States but around the 
world. I think every Member of this Chamber should be proud of this 
center's work. So I am pleased that the committee continues to fund 
this center.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumen-
auer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in 
permitting me to speak on this rule.
  I am pleased that under the rule we will be able later in the 
deliberations to have a debate, a discussion, on a modest amendment to 
the sugar subsidy program. This is something that unfortunately flies 
under the radar screen here in Washington, DC. Any approach to look at 
independent analysts, to look at conservative groups like the Cato 
Institute, to look at environmental organizations, all document that 
the sugar subsidy program we have provides tremendous cost to the 
taxpayers, billions of dollars.
  It starts by forcing American consumers and the industries that use 
sugar to pay two to three times the world market price. It puts at risk 
over 500,000 jobs that are still in the United States in the 
confectionery industry. We used to have more people at work in Hershey, 
Pennsylvania, in the Northeast, in Chicago making candy; but these jobs 
are being driven to Canada, to Mexico and other places because our 
price of the raw material, sugar, is so much more expensive.
  We find that the sugar cane industry particularly is a cause of 
significant pollution in the everglades. This Congress has placed a 
$7.5 billion down payment cleaning up the everglades in part because of 
the significant expansion of cane sugar production because it is so 
heavily subsidized and produces a toxic run off of pollution.
  It even drives up cost to the Federal Government in other areas you 
do not think about; $90 million that the Federal Government pays for 
food, for example, for U.S. troops, with added cost because of these 
subsidies.
  This sugar subsidy continues at a time when we are cutting programs 
for other farmers for their environmental programs at a time when there 
is no help for many farmers, in my State that are short-changed row 
crops, the speciality crops, the nursery industry, and wine producers. 
We have an out-of-whack, hopelessly expensive, out-moded and anti-
competitive trade subsidy program that will leave the taxpayer footing 
the bill for years to come.
  We will have an amendment offered later today that will provide for a 
modest adjustment, downward, so the taxpayer will not be on the hook 
for quite so much and we can reduce the pressure on American industry 
that uses sugar and American consumers who will be paying over a 
billion dollars a year.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I speak 
at this time in regard to an amendment which I understand will be 
offered later concerning the National Animal Identification System.
  Two Tennessee legislators who also happen to represent parts of my 
district, State Representative Frank Niceley and my own State Senator 
Tim Burchett, have introduced a bill to prohibit the use of State funds 
to implement the program in Tennessee. As Representative Niceley told 
the Knoxville News Sentinel: ``I think this thing had more to do with 
selling chips than anything else.'' He said, ``I just get tired of 
business going to Washington and selling their business plan up there 
and getting rich off the public.''
  The people pushing this are international and national bureaucrats 
who want more power and control, their academic supporters, and 
especially a few agri-giant businesses. Small and medium-sized farmers 
do not want it.
  Ron Freeman, a fifth-generation cattleman said, ``NAIS will not 
prevent or control disease. Instead it will allow the government and 
big business to control our food supply and intrude into the lives of 
every farmer and rancher.''
  Judith McGeary, a Texas lawyer, described the program as, ``One of 
the most far-reaching acts of surveillance of the most wholesome 
activities of U.S. citizens. Children in 4-H with pet goats, senior 
citizens raising food for themselves, friends going on trail rides 
would all be forced to endure the warrantless government 
surveillance.''
  If this isn't Big Brother government I do not know what is.
  Mr. Speaker, this sure isn't traditional conservatism. Costs of new 
programs such as this are always low-balled on the front end. The 
president of the Australian Cattleman's Association called this program 
``the single worst thing to ever hit the beef industry in Australia.''

                              {time}  1100

  He said they were promised on the front end that it would cost only 
$3 a head. The costs are already running $37 a head counting cost of 
scanners and various indirect costs.
  A farmer in Roane County, Tennessee, Everett Phillips has only eight 
beef cattle, a milk cow, some chickens and a few barnyard animals. He 
told the Knoxville News-Sentinel, if you add up cost, the inconvenience 
of Federal bureaucracy and privacy concerns, and ``It is going to hurt 
the farmer.'' He said he considers selling out and moving to Argentina. 
I know that people laugh when people make statements like this, but 
this highlights the serious concern that small farmers have about this 
program.
  If this is still a free country, Mr. Speaker, we should at least make 
this program voluntarily instead of mandatory. This NAIS program will 
really hurt the smallest of our farmers, the very farmers we always 
claim to be helping.
  I urge support if this amendment is offered later today to really 
help the small farmer.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am sure there will be a number of amendments offered during the 
day. I just want to call my colleagues' attention to one amendment that 
may be offered by Representative Johnson of Illinois that I strongly 
oppose, and I would urge all my colleagues to oppose it as well.
  This is an amendment that is supposedly an attempt to tackle the 
obesity problem in this country, but what it is, is an amendment that 
would restrict the choice of people who are on food stamps. It would 
basically dictate to people on food stamps that they could not buy 
certain things, and this is problematic, I think, for a number of 
reasons.
  First, I think the emphasis should be on promoting healthier foods in 
our nutrition and not on constant punitive measures against poor 
people. If we want to deal with the obesity problem in this country, 
which is a serious problem, we should do so thoughtfully, and we should 
do so with considerable deliberation to make sure that what we are 
doing is actually solving and tackling the problem. I do not think this 
will do that.
  Secondly, this bill I do not think is the appropriate bill for us to 
make

[[Page 9205]]

these kinds of big changes. There are other bills that are more 
appropriate coming down the line, and I hope that my colleagues will 
respect that. But, again, rather than limiting choices for poor people, 
we should focus our attention and put the emphasis on healthier foods, 
like fruits and vegetables, without limiting people's choices. We 
should focus on nutrition education, and we should focus on raising 
people out of poverty instead of constantly blaming them and trying to 
pursue punitive measures, which I think is not only the wrong way to 
deal with the problem but I also think shows kind of a lack of respect 
for people who are struggling in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member on this committee.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it has been a privilege to serve on this 
subcommittee and to work on issues of such importance, such as rural 
development, nutrition, drug safety and so many others, and I have 
enjoyed working with Chairman Bonilla in my time as ranking member.
  We have produced a good bill I think, but I am disappointed that this 
rule does not allow for consideration of an amendment I planned to 
offer that would have increased funding for rural development and 
renewable energy programs by $500 million. Nor does this rule protect 
language giving the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, the much-
needed authority to mandate post-market drug studies when needed.
  In offering this amendment, I believe we could have begun to meet a 
variety of rural development needs, from waste and water grants and 
community facility grants to funding for broadband expansion and 
renewable energy infrastructure.
  In particular, we could have made a strong commitment to renewable 
energy by providing meaningful incentives for renewable energy 
production, consumption and infrastructure through programs in the farm 
bill and in the energy bill, the Bioenergy Program, the Value-Added 
Agricultural Product Market Development Grants, the Renewable Energy 
Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements Programs, just to name a 
few.
  But even though we have an extraordinary opportunity to reenergize 
our farm economy at the same time we jump start the country's energy 
independence efforts by getting these new technologies out of the labs, 
onto our roads and into our homes and businesses, our investment in 
these programs continues to be tentative.
  Mr. Speaker, with Americans ready to declare their energy 
independence, with biofuels on the cusp of revolutionizing the American 
economy in the very near future, just as they did for Brazil in only a 
few years' time, we can make a statement that the Congress is ready to 
face this challenge. We should be tapping the promise that our farms 
hold to reduce our dependence on oil and provide a more secure economic 
future for our farmers.
  I am also disappointed that the Rules Committee failed to protect 
language approved by the Appropriations Committee to give the Food and 
Drug Administration, the FDA, the much-needed authority to mandate 
post-market drug studies when needed and allow the FDA to begin the 
process of removing the drugs in question from the market if there are 
instances of noncompliance.
  The amendment is simple. It would require anyone who has the approval 
of the FDA to sell a drug to conduct any study or studies on any 
significant safety issue on that product that the FDA requests.
  This language addresses one of the key issues identified in the 
recent GAO study on post-market studies which concluded that, ``the FDA 
lacks clear and effective processes for making decisions about and 
providing management oversight of post-market safety issues.'' The FDA 
needs this authority to ensure that we are not putting lives at risk 
with unsafe drugs that are not fully tested.
  Let me quote to you what the GAO study said: To improve the decision-
making process for post-market drug safety, the Congress should 
consider expanding FDA's authority to require drug sponsors to conduct 
post-market studies, such as clinical trials and observation studies, 
as needed and to collect additional data on the drug safety concerns.
  This is an issue that could not have come up at a more appropriate 
time. Just yesterday, the New York Times reported that the data 
analysis that was completed on Vioxx was done in a way that actually 
minimized the risks of the drug. That tells us that even when post-
market studies are conducted, they cannot be counted on to be 
completely reliable. The language stripped by this rule would have 
constituted one small step toward implementing a better post-market 
system at the FDA and to stop putting at risk the lives of the American 
public and make sure that the drugs are safe and that they are fully 
tested and that, when we have adverse reactions to these drugs, that 
there is a way in which the government can, in fact, make sure that 
these companies do what is required to ensure public health.
  So, Mr. Speaker, while I do believe we have produced a good bill, 
these are two areas in which I am very disappointed because I think we 
had an opportunity to produce an even better bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I will be calling for a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If the 
previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule so that we can 
consider the DeLauro amendment that was rejected in Rules Committee 
last night on a straight party-line vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the text of the 
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). Is there objection to the request 
of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the DeLauro amendment will increase 
funding for alternative energy research, something that is desperately 
needed in our Nation these days. The cost of the amendment is fully 
offset by rolling back a mere 1.21 percent, the tax cut for Americans 
making more than $1 million annually.
  Mr. Speaker, the energy crisis continues to get worse and worse in 
our country every day. All you need to do is fill up your gas tank or 
open your heating bill to know that the cost of fuel is skyrocketing, 
with no signs of letting up anytime soon, if ever.
  We can continue to ignore this crisis until the costs are prohibited 
or our supplies run dry, or we can do the responsible thing and invest 
in research and development of alternative energy sources, something 
that we should have been doing a long time ago.
  Our energy needs are growing every day in this Nation and in the rest 
of the world as well. We have to find other ways to meet those needs. 
We need a substitute for oil and other fossil fuels. There are many 
promising alternative energy sources out there that we need to explore 
immediately to ensure that they are available in the near future. The 
DeLauro amendment will help support these efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, in the Rules Committee last night, we were told, as we 
are told often, that there is a germaneness issue and that thereby they 
would not make this amendment in order, but the fact of the matter is 
that those of us on this side of the aisle are trying to actually solve 
America's problems. We are trying to propose alternatives and pay for 
them as we go. We are not just proposing ideas and not identifying 
where the money would come from. We are actually laying out a plan to 
make this country energy independent, to try to deal with the rising 
costs of gas and of oil, and this is the only way we can do this. We 
are constantly denied the opportunity to debate and to vote on a 
comprehensive plan or to deal with this issue. This is the moment.
  I want to point out to my colleagues that a ``no'' vote will not 
prevent us from considering the agricultural appropriations bill under 
an open rule, but a ``no'' vote will allow Members to vote on the 
DeLauro amendment. A

[[Page 9206]]

``no'' vote will allow us to be able to support an initiative and a 
plan to deal with this energy crisis, to actually map out a strategy to 
support renewable energy sources.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my 
colleagues to vote for the previous question and for the resolution. I 
want to make two points.
  The gentleman says that one reason to vote against the previous 
question is to have a chance to have a say on the DeLauro amendment. I 
would advise my colleagues that the DeLauro amendment was offered in 
the full committee, notwithstanding the fact that it is legislating on 
an appropriations bill, and even the members of the Appropriations 
Committee rejected the DeLauro amendment.
  As I mentioned earlier in my remarks, there is a long-standing 
tradition that when an authorizing committee has an objection to a 
provision in an appropriations bill, that provision is not waived.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, this is a good rule. It allows for open 
debate. It is an open rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

Previous Question for H. Res. 830--Rule for H.R. 5384, the Agriculture, 
  Rural Development, Food & Drug Administration, and Related Agencies 
                       Appropriations for FY 2007

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, the amendment printed in section 3 shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order and before 
     any other amendment if offered by Representative DeLauro of 
     Connecticut or a designee. The amendment is not subject to 
     amendment except for pro forma amendments or to a demand for 
     a division of the question in the committee of the whole or 
     in the House.
       Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as 
     follows:

                  Amendment to H.R. 5384, as Reported

                 Offered by Ms. DeLauro of Connecticut

       Page 13, line 6, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $25,000,000)''.
       Page 36, line 21, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $229,303,000)''.
       Page 48, line 26, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $12,000,000)''.
       Page 50, line 6, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $23,000,000)''.
       Page 51, line 23, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 52, line 7, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $6,697,000)''.
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the 
     following new sections:
       ``Sec. __. In addition to amounts otherwise provided by 
     this Act, there is hereby appropriated to the Secretary the 
     following amounts for the following purposes:
       ``(1) For biorefinery grants authorized by section 9003 of 
     the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 
     8103), $50,000,000.
       ``(2) For grants under the energy audit and renewable 
     energy development program authorized by section 9005 of such 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 8105), $10,000,000.
       ``(3) For payments under the bioenergy program authorized 
     by section 9010 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 8108), and 
     notwithstanding subsection (c)(2) of such section, 
     $120,000,000.
       ``(4) For grants under the Biomass Research and Development 
     Initiative authorized by section 307 of the Biomass Research 
     and Development Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7624), $14,000,000.
       ``Sec. __. In the case of taxpayers with income in excess 
     of $1,000,000, for the calendar year beginning in 2007, the 
     amount of tax reduction resulting from enactment of Public 
     Law 107-16, Public Law 108-27, and Public Law 108-311 shall 
     be reduced by 1.21 percent.''.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________