Public Private Vocational Partnership Act of 2003

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, at a time of recession, rising unemployment in our country, the currency fluctuations that are affecting our markets internationally and great dependency on the Federal Government by our farm sector for economic survival, this bill fails to meet the needs of today's economy, including in rural America, for a countercyclical boost.

It has been a great pleasure working with our chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), in trying to do the best with the allocation that we were afforded by the full committee; but it is very important as we proceed today to place on the record not only the condition of rural America but how this country and the government of this country is responding to it.

The allocation that we received forced our committee to produce a bill that is nearly $1 billion under last year's level, indeed $872 million. This situation exists partly because of the fault of the administration which submitted a request to us that did not provide support in many critical areas. In part, it is the fault of this Republican Congress which adopted a budget resolution that did not recognize the vital role that agriculture plays as a pillar of our economy. In fact, the allocation, as I said, for this bill is well below the administration's request as well as last year's level.

As a result, the bill underinvests in rural America. Surely in value- added production, where the future lies, it cripples our producers' efforts to earn more from the marketplace and less from support payments that continue to be forked over by the billions. The bill fails to meet the needs of other Americans who depend on agencies in the bill for nutrition, food safety, and other important services.

Technically the bill provides $17.005 billion for discretionary programs, and that is about a percent below the budget request, but 5 percent below the 2003 level of $17.877 billion, a most astonishing set of cutbacks in America's leading domestic industry that still maintains a trade surplus in global markets. I might mention, if Members think about the total of our entire bill, about $17 billion, we are spending that much in 4 months in Iraq. According to what Secretary Rumsfeld has told Congress, we are spending about $4 billion a month, twice as much as we anticipated, to try to feed hungry people and deal with health clinics and all the related expenditures in keeping our troops well supplied. If we think about what we are asking for in this bill versus what we are spending in other places in the world, we can call into question what has been brought to the floor in this package.

Now, among the funds and programs that are underfunded or at risk of inadequate support are farm loans, rural development, domestic food programs, international food aid, research, which is so important to the future, the Food & Drug Administration, such as approving medical devices, and a number of mandatory programs, for which funding is blocked. Funding for many new initiatives established in the farm bill to lead American agriculture into the 21st century is, once again, deferred.

And in some other accounts, it is highly likely that additional funds may be needed when this bill goes to conference, but those funds simply will not be available.

Let us talk about rural America. It is a part of our country on life support. We have a crisis in the rural parts of America born of concentration inside our market that is supposed to be competitive. As well, we have a crisis of diminishing U.S. exports. Even though our agricultural trade surplus at least helps to try to hold up our trade accounts, nonetheless, over the years we have had fewer agricultural exports and more imports coming into this country. So, agricultural America is beginning to tilt toward the negative in the same way as manufacturing America in terms of our trade accounts. We have a crisis in rural America of ignoring investment in new value-added developments such as bioenergy production in which this bill severely underinvests. The economic crisis in agriculture has social consequences in crime and social instability in the part of America that used to be called the heartland and always regarded as the cherished repository of our most fundamental values of free holding, of family, of faith, of community, and of stewardship.

The New York Times ran a powerful article in December entitled ``Pastoral Poverty: The Seeds of Decline.'' It detailed the systematic decline of the social fabric across rural America. Here are some of the conditions that were mentioned: the rate of serious crime in predominantly rural States such as Kansas and Oklahoma is 50 percent higher than in places like New York State where we have some of the largest metropolitan areas in the country; bank robberies are most likely in towns of 10,000 to 25,000 people. The article went on to talk about people in rural areas making much less than their urban counterparts and much more likely to have only minimum-wage jobs.

There were 300 times more seizures of methamphetamine labs in Iowa in 1999 than in New York and New Jersey combined, based on Drug Enforcement Administration figures.

So if everything is so great, why is the social fabric disintegrating? The economic factors that lead to this social disintegration are very clear, and they have been accelerating for a number of years. This bill will only help exacerbate them because today it is no secret that all that is holding up rural America is Federal subsidy. Fifty cents of every farm dollar today is earned from the mailbox when the farmer goes out to get his subsidy check, not from the market.

This bill could really do something to turn that around. It fails to do that.

More farmers and ranchers are depending on off-farm income to supplement an economy that is not working for them. USDA's economists recently reported that more than half of all farm operators have off- farm income, and when other household members are added in the off-farm income level jumps to 85 percent. So farming is becoming more of a hobby-oriented activity out there because you cannot earn your income unless you have inherited an enormous amount from past generations and even then you are trying to hold up your current debt level. The market is not providing real income without the Federal subsidy.

The stresses of rural life were also illustrated in a story last year about an Iowa program to provide mental health counseling to struggling farmers and their families. Surely this economic stress has an impact on people's ability to weather this economy over a number of years. But the funding so essential to help farmers make it in the market, in the competitive marketplace, is severely undermined in this bill. This is true with farm loan programs. Which help farmers to buy a farm or operate a farm; with rural development programs, which help both individuals and communities with homeownership, so essential to helping move our economy out of recession; water and sewer needs, which are hard investments that lead to growth; telecommunications and other vital services so necessary to help rural America jump-start into the private economy. All of these needed programs are either cut or fail to be funded in this bill. The bill falls far short of the true need.

Let us go through them. Farm loans. Overall, the bill cuts farm loans by 5 percent below the request, providing $173 million less in loans. For three critical programs, farm ownership guaranteed loans, farm operating direct loans, and farm operating subsidized guaranteed loans, the bill provides about a half a billion dollars less in loans than last year. That is a 20 percent cut. That is a cut in investment for our future.

Many other programs are cut. The business and industry guaranteed loan program is cut by 38 percent. This is where the new jobs will come from in rural America. Yet, in a time of recession, the administration and their congressional allies are cutting that by over a third.

Single family guaranteed home loans are 4 percent below the 2003 request. And think about that. That is $120 million less to offer borrowers at a time when the housing industry is the only industry that is out there that is holding this economy up as it hemorrhages jobs in other sectors.

The bill eliminates funding for the Rural Telephone Bank, which made $175 million of loans last year in 23 States. And we know that the utilities and the communications infrastructure of rural America is not at the same level as in our metropolitan areas. I think that is a very backward-looking cut.

What about water and wastewater disposal grants, one of the core programs of rural development? Every single State in this Union has people, lots of people, backed up to try to get approval for these programs. The bill does provide more funding than the administration's request, but it is $43 million below what was spent last year and almost $250 million below the level that numerous Members of Congress asked of this committee to meet the realistic needs of rural development.

Grants for distance learning and telemedicine and broadband are $24 million below this year's level.

I do not have to tell anybody out there about the shortage of physicians and medical information in rural America compared to urban and suburban America.

Funding for electric loan programs is nearly $1 billion below this year, a 20 percent reduction. How does that really help development across rural America?

Let us now look at our domestic and international programs. They are underfunded. During this year, Democrats focused on the record demand for domestic food, such as women, infants and children's coupons and food stamps. Noting enormous lines at soup kitchens and food pantries this winter, we fought very hard for temporary emergency assistance for food, and for these food banks across America. The bill does not respond adequately to these concerns, that is for sure.

Now, with the major rebuilding efforts that America is going to have to make in Iraq and Afghanistan, food will be critical to stabilizing the situation there; and we know that this bill falls far short of what is needed long-term. It simply cannot hold. We cannot meet these commitments without increasing the funding levels in these programs.

Let us now look at our domestic food programs. I mentioned the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program. It is $10 million below the new authorized level in the farm bill. All you have to do is go out to the food banks in your region to see what the need really is and hear the concerns that have been expressed by food bank directors and by human service directors and church leaders across this country. Funding for the Women, Infants and Children's Program is reduced below the administration request. The Commodity Supplemental Food Program is almost $20 million below this year. These are all programs that help keep people whole in bad economic times.

Neither the administration request nor the bill that is before us today adequately provides funding for the Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program, despite the fact that applications in recent years have far outpaced available funds.

The Food and Drug Administration in this bill receives nearly $11 million less than what was requested. What does that mean? It means that we will not have full funding to implement the generic drug program, the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, the over-the- counter drug program and the patient safety and adverse event reporting initiative. The bill will also halt work on the Arkansas regional lab and reduce funding for ongoing maintenance at Food and Drug Administration facilities by 25 percent.

An area of interest to many Members is medical device funding. The administration made an agreement in 2002 with the medical device industry and authorizing committees here for new industry user fees in exchange for a set level of discretionary funding each year for the program. Under the statute, if total discretionary funds fall short of the required level over a several-year period, the program sunsets. But despite the fact that it was a party to this agreement, the administration completely failed to live up to its part of the deal last year and this year and did not request the required funds. At least 46 Members of both parties requested that the full amount for devices be provided.

This bill provides an increase of $9 million over the request for the medical device program, but this is still short of the required level in order to really make the approval program work.

I wanted to say a word about mandatory programs because the bill includes 10 provisions cutting mandatory agricultural programs by $540 million. These are programs that provide support for rural firefighters; dam rehabilitation; renewable energy, and what could be more important to our country than that when we hemorrhage in terms of our ability to balance our trade accounts because of imported petroleum; conservation, which was a promise made in the recent farm bill; telecommunications and research. These cuts in those mandatory programs will have a real impact across rural America.

The Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program is cut by $95 million, more than twice the cut in this year's bill, despite a rapidly growing number of dams reaching the end of their useful lives across our country. Two years ago, the Natural Resource and Conservation Service had identified 1,450 dams in need of rehabilitation at a cost of about a half a billion dollars, $500 million. We have already spent that much money in the first half of July in Iraq, but we are not willing to spend that money here at home for infrastructure improvements.

While the bill does provide an increase of $20 million in discretionary funding, the cut in mandatory funding makes it much harder to meet identified needs. It is estimated there is a backlog of over $80 million just to finish projects currently under way, so funding on both the discretion and the mandatory sides are needed.

The bill eliminates the funding for rural firefighters. The bill eliminates all funding for the conservation security program. And in the Wetlands Reserve Program, so essential to assuring a healthy ecosystem, the bill cuts new enrollment in the program by a fifth, by 20 percent, which means that we will have so many fewer people who will be able to participate in a program that has a backlog of 736,000 acres.

In the EQIP Program, the bill reduces funding by $25 million; and that means that there will be 1,450 producers who will not be able to get EQIP funding this year.

In renewable energy, I think the bill is terribly ill-advised in zeroing out funding in a sector where America must restore her independence.

And in value-added grants, which the farm bill asked for, this bill zeros out support for the new jobs of the future that could be created across rural America.

In broadband loans for telecommunications, the bill eliminates all funding for this authorized program.

And for the initiative for future agriculture and food systems, the bill cuts $120 million from this competitive grant program which is designed to do research in critical areas such as genomics, food safety, food technology, human nutrition, new and alternative uses and production of agricultural commodities and products, agricultural biotechnology, where so much of our future lies and the world's future, natural resource management, including precision agriculture, and farm efficiency and profitability.

Other shortcomings in the bill I will quickly mention. Country-of- origin labeling. The bill prevents the implementation of origin labels for meat and meat products. This is a basic consumer right-to-know issue which the House unanimously supported when it instructed its conferees on the farm bill to support country-of-origin labeling for both meat and perishable products.

In terms of the provisions for meatpacker audits, the administration asked Congress for $1 million for the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration to audit the four largest steer and heifer meatpackers for compliance with that act. This might sound routine, but it is not. This would be the first time in the 82-year history of the Packers and Stockyards Act that the agency has required a large packer audit, but the bill conveniently does not provide the funding. Gosh, I wonder why.

And then in the food safety and inspection provisions, the bill provides about $12 million less than requested for the Food Safety and Inspection Service.

In terms of research, and this is really the seed corn for the future, the bill provides only half of the funding for the upgrading of security at our agricultural research labs.

In addition to that, the Cooperative Research Education and Extension Service, overall funding is over the request of the administration but $22 million lower than this year's level. As a result, many important research institutions and activities, including our 1890 and 1994 institutions, are shortchanged. In addition, at least 95 Members of this House of both parties asked for a 5 percent increase in these research formula funds, but the bill does not provide this.

Many Members also asked for $200 million for funding the national research initiative, but the bill provides only $149 million.

The Economic Research Service and National Agricultural Statistics Service would receive almost $12 million less than requested, forcing the postponement of important initiatives such as genomics research and improvement of statistical information in our New England States, Hawaii and Alaska.

In concluding these opening remarks, I would just like to summarize by saying that budgets reveal priorities. This year we are seeing that the Republican Party in this House is willing to put huge tax breaks for the most well-off in our society and also military action around the world ahead of almost every other economic and social value in our country. Rural America needs to have market-oriented incentives, not dole for farmers from coast to coast. This bill is an important answer to the situation confronting our Nation in one of the most vital sectors of our economy, and we should not shortchange the future by the underinvestment that this bill represents.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), ranking member of our full committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), ranking member of the authorizing committee.

(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit the testimony of Wenonah Hauter of Public Citizen before the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee. This testimony was inadvertently omitted from the printed hearings of the Subcommittee.

Testimony of Wenonah Hauter Director of the Critical Mass Energy and

Environment Program Public Citizen

Chairman Bonilla, Ranking Member Kaptur and Members of the

Subcommittee, my name is Wenonah Hauter. I am the Director of

Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and Environment

Program. As you know, Public Citizen is a national consumer

organization founded by Ralph Nader in 1971. We represent

150,000 members. We welcome this opportunity to present our

views on the FY 2004 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and

Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill.

USDA--Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)

We are adamantly opposed to the Administration's proposal

to collect $122 million in user fees to recover the cost of

providing inspection services beyond an approved eight-hour

primary shift. We believe that such a proposal could

compromise the effectiveness of FSIS inspectors. Furthermore,

FSIS has already taken action to de-list foreign

establishments that had been previously approved to export

their meat and poultry products to the United States on the

basis that inspection services were paid by the companies

involved instead of by the foreign government. Implementation

of the Administration's proposal to institute user fees would

be hypocritical.

Additionally, we are concerned that the current proposal to

hire approximately 80 more FSIS inspectors will be inadequate

to fill current vacancies and to make up for previous year's

cuts. We recommend that at least 200 line inspectors be hired

this year.

The alarming number and magnitude of meat and poultry

recalls in the past year indicate that there are some serious

problems with the implementation of the Hazard Analysis

Critical Control Points (HAACP) program. We have been arguing

for the past three years that HACCP has turned over too much

authority to industry to police itself and has severely

undercut the ability of FSIS inspection personnel to their

jobs. We have heard directly from inspection personnel who

state that they are very confused and concerned over their

roles in HAACP.

More troubling is the fact that the economic well-being of

companies is placed ahead of the public's welfare by the

management at FSIS. In June 2002, we were able to obtain

instructions to FSIS inspectors assigned to a large Kansas

slaughter plant in which they were admonished that should

they err on the side of public health and stop a slaughter

line for suspected fecal contamination they could be

personally liable for their decision.

We are also concerned about the failure of supervisors and

management to back up FSIS inspectors when they discover food

safety hazards. Since last year's massive ConAgra recall, it

has come to light that USDA was notified of potential

problems at the Greeley, Colorado plant as early as February

2002--some three months before the first recall notice went

out. Warnings came from John Munsell, president of Montana

Quality Foods and Processing, after FSIS personnel assigned

to his plant confirmed that the source of contaminated meat

ground at Montana Quality Foods and Processing was the

ConAgra plant in Greeley, Colorado. Instead of applauding Mr.

Munsell and the FSIS personnel for their investigative work,

they have been maligned by top FSIS officials and have been

told they had no authority to point the finger at ConAgra.

The same can be said of the Wampler recall. A twenty-year

veteran FSIS inspector, Vincent Erthal, had tried to warn his

supervisors for several months of the unsanitary conditions

at the Wampler plant in Franconia, Pennsylvania. His concerns

went unheeded. This fall, the second largest recall in FSIS

history was issued for possible Listeria monocytogenes

contamination of product coming out of that plant. After much

soul-searching, Mr. Erthal decided to come forward to reveal

how his attempts to warn FSIS supervision of his concerns

were thwarted. Again, instead of backing their own employee,

FSIS management has circled the wagons and launched a

campaign to discredit Mr. Erthal.

With all of the problems that FSIS has already experienced

with their implementation of HAACP in processing plants, the

proposed FY 2004 budget contains language that would expand

the HACCP-based Inspection Models Project (HIMP) in slaughter

facilities. HIMP is yet another attempt at weakening the

authority of FSIS inspection personnel and turning that

responsibility over to company personnel. In a December 17,

2001 report, staff from the General Accounting Office found

glaring methodological deficiencies in FSIS' current pilot

project. There has not been any evidence to show that those

deficiencies have been addressed. Therefore, we would urge

that this expansion of HIMP not go forward until all data

from the current project has been evaluated.

While we applaud additional funds to support food safety

education, we believe that the money will actually be used to

promote irradiation. In her written remarks to the

Subcommittee, Under Secretary for Food Safety Dr. Elsa Murano

stated it was her intent to devote resources to educate the

public about food irradiation. Her remarks also indicate that

she will attempt to blur the

definition of pasteurization to include irradiation as part

of the education campaign.

In focus groups conducted for FSIS in 2002, consumers in

St. Louis, Missouri; Raleigh, North Carolina; and

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania were asked whether they considered

irradiation to be a form of pasteurization, and

overwhelmingly consumers responded that making such an

assertion would be misleading. Those findings corroborated

findings from focus groups conducted for the Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) in three different cities during the

summer of 2001. We urge you not to fund any additional

efforts to change labeling requirements for irradiated food

by allowing ``pasteurization'' to be used.

Lastly, we are concerned about the recent revelations that

FSIS still has not addressed problems identified by the USDA

Inspector General (IG) regarding the agency's reinspection

program for imported meat and poultry products. In 2000, the

IG noted some 18 deficiencies in the FSIS reinspection

program. In her recent audit, the IG stated that FSIS has

still not corrected 14 of those deficiencies--even though

they had agreed to do so three years ago. In light of the

heightened concerns about the security of our food supply,

this is unconscionable. We urge you to instruct FSIS to

comply with the recommendations in the 2000 Inspector General

report.

usda--food and nutrition service/agricultural marketing service

The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (the

Farm Bill) contains a provision (section 4201 (1)) that

directs the Secretary of Agriculture not to prohibit the use

of approved food safety technologies in any commodity

purchased by the USDA for various government-sponsored

nutrition programs, including the National School Lunch and

National Breakfast Programs. The USDA has decided this means

that they should lift the current ban on the use of

irradiation as an intervention for ground beef products

purchased for these programs. And, it seems irradiation is

the only approved food safety technology they are pursuing.

Section 4201(l) received no scrutiny from any congressional

committee, in either the House or Senate. It never received

any floor debate in either the House or Senate. It was placed

in the Senate version of the Farm Bill at the last minute as

part of a 400-page manager's amendment. The conferees on the

Farm Bill never even discussed it in open session.

On November 22, 2002, the USDA announced that it would

solicit comments from the public on the implementation of

Section 4201(l) of the Farm Bill and specifically wanted

comments on irradiation. The comments are being collected by

the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). Of the comments

posted on the AMS website as of March 19, 2003, by over a 5

to 1 margin, citizens have expressed their opposition to

lifting the ban on irradiation--with thousands of comments

still left to be posted. Comments opposing such action have

come from nearly all fifty states, while those supporting the

technology have come primarily from those who have direct

ties to the irradiation industry.

In order to promote this technology, the Food and Nutrition

Service (FNS) has funded an irradiation ``education'' program

in three Minnesota school districts. The program is being

administered by proponents of irradiation--with no access for

critics of the technology to present alternative views. In

addition, the steering committee for the program is dominated

by one irradiation company and its affiliates. In essence,

FNS is funding a government-sponsored advertising campaign

for one company.

Recent research indicates that some chemicals formed when

certain foods are irradiated may be harmful when consumed.

The new studies call into question the long-held position of

the FDA and the food industry that irradiated foods are

generally safe for human consumption. But the studies confirm

research published in 1998 and 2001 showing that

concentrations of chemicals called 2-alkylcyclobutanones (or

2-ACBs)--which are found only in irradiated foods--caused DNA

damage in human cells. Among the new findings, 2-ACBs were

shown to promote tumor development in rat colons. The 2-ACBs

are formed when foods that contain fat are irradiated,

such as beef, chicken, eggs and certain fruits--all of

which can legally be irradiated.

There is even less research into the long-term health

effects experienced by children who are exposed to toxic

chemicals in foods. Dr. William Au, a toxicologist at the

Department of Preventive Medicine and Community Health,

University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, has argued

that the lack of understanding regarding the ill effects

suffered by children who consume toxic chemicals in foods

extends to ``the toxicological risk with respect to eating

irradiated food.''

If implemented, Section 4201 (1) will create the largest

mass-feeding of irradiated food to children in history. We

urge the committee not to fund the purchase of irradiated

food for federal government nutrition programs.

Food and Drug Administration

We are concerned about the lack of funding for the Food and

Drug Administration (FDA) for import reinspections. Even

after the additional funding the agency received in FY 2003

to hire more staff to perform food import reinspections, the

agency is only capable of reinspecting a paltry 1.3 percent

of imported food over which it has jurisdiction. This needs

to be addressed with additional funding, with the goal of

reaching at least the 20 percent reinspection rate that FSIS

is able to perform for imported meat and poultry products.

Furthermore, FDA should be granted the same authority that

FSIS currently possesses to inspect foreign establishments

that can export their food to the United States.

We are also concerned with the repeated attempts to weaken

the labeling for irradiated foods. The FDA has visited this

issue repeatedly since 1997--primarily at the direction of

Congress. Each time, the FDA finds that consumers do not see

eye-to-eye on this issue with the irradiation industry and

their supporters in Congress. It seems that there are those

who want to keep on trying until we get it wrong.

In the conference committee report that accompanied the FY

2001 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug

Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, the

conferees stated: ``The conferees expect FDA to make final

the regulations regarding labeling of irradiated foods by

March 1, 2002, and report to the House and Senate Committees

on Appropriations on the status by November 15, 2000. This

agreement changes the dates proposed for final regulations by

the House of September 30, 2001, and by the Senate of October

30, 2001.''

In its report to the Appropriations Committees, the FDA

explained that it had published an Advanced Notice for

Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) in 1999 on food irradiation

labeling as the agency was directed to do under the FDA

Modernization Act conference committee report in 1997. In

evaluating the comments that the agency received from the

ANPR, FDA stated: ``The majority of these comments were

letters that urged the agency to retain special labeling for

irradiated foods but did not address the specific issues on

which FDA requested comment. A preliminary analysis of the

comments suggests no consensus about what alternative

language for disclosure of irradiation processing would be

truthful and not misleading. Because the public comments

provided no clear direction for agency rulemaking, FDA

believes that 1999 ANPR fulfills the Agency's obligations

under the FDAMA Conference Report.''

The FDA went on to say in its report to Congress that it

intended to impanel consumer focus groups to attempt to

obtain further guidance on the labeling issue.

During the summer of 2001, the FDA commissioned six

consumer focus groups in suburban Washington, DC;

Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Sacramento, California. In all of

the focus groups, the moderator attempted to make a strong

association between pasteurization and irradiation. This was

significant since there have been some irradiation proponents

who have argued that a more appropriate term to describe

irradiation is either ``cold pasteurization'' or ``electronic

pasteurization.'' In a 2002 report to Congress, the FDA

summarized the results of those focus groups: ``Most of the

participants viewed alternate terms such as `cold

pasteurization' and `electronic pasteurization' as

misleading, because they appeared to conceal rather than

disclose information about irradiated food products.

Participants did not see the current disclosure labeling as a

warning . . . Everyone agreed that irradiated foods should be

labeled honestly. They indicated that the current FDA

required statement is a straightforward way for labeling

irradiated foods.''

Furthermore, in his 2002 testimony before the House

Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug

Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations, Dr.

Lester Crawford, Deputy Commissioner of the FDA stated:

``(W)hen we did focus groups at FDA on cold pasteurization,

the general feeling of the average citizen was that this was

kind of a ruse or a means to conceal the fact that the food

had been irradiated. And so we are kind of back to square

one. We don't have a good synonym for irradiation and we

would like to have one. We don't want to mislead the

public.''

The public has been very consistent on the issue--in focus

groups for USDA and FDA and in public comments solicited by

FDA. Consumers do not want labeling rules for irradiated food

to allow euphemisms like ``electronic pasteurization.'' In

fact, rather than changing the words that are permitted to

describe irradiated food, FDA should instead focus on

expanding the current rules beyond retail establishments, so

that irradiated food served in restaurants, hospitals and

schools must be labeled. There have already been too many

resources devoted to this issue within FDA. The driving force

ought to be what the consumers believe to be honest and

straightforward labeling--not what some in industry think

will make it easier to sell their product. The FDA has more

important things to do than devising ways to confuse and

mislead consumers. We urge you not to find further attempts

to change labeling rules for irradiated foods.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I wanted to say that I think the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) has a very worthy amendment here. I was particularly struck by one of his arguments: the linkage between crime and the mistreatment of animals and the increasing spread of Exotic Newcastle Disease across our country which, by the way, also has a cost. It comes to us in the form of trying to remediate and to make whole those whose flocks have been devastated. I do not think that it is widely known that, as the gentleman mentioned, some of the animals might have come in from another country. We know how poorly our borders are inspected.

So I want to commend the gentleman for taking the offset for his amendment from the buildings accounts, as opposed to from our research accounts or our animal plant health inspection accounts, or our border inspections, et cetera. I think that the matter is that the people who are doing this are doing it illegally; and now there is a linkage to the spread of disease, serious disease.

I think that the gentleman's amendment is very reasonable. He is asking for $800,000 for the Office of the Inspector General who, when they are given the authority, do a great job, to try to remedy this animal fighting across our country and, I think importantly, to stem any disease that may spread as a result of it.

So I just wanted the speak on behalf of the gentleman's amendment and to thank him for the responsible manner in which he has found an offset to try to find the funds for the Inspector General.

I might say, one of the bad things about the way the laws concerning the Inspector General have been written, even if wrongdoers are found and fines are levied, under the laws of our country the Inspector General has to return those funds to the Department of Treasury. It does not go to the Department of Agriculture for further prosecution and further investigation. I have never liked that aspect of the law, because I think we ought to reward the Inspectors General that are doing a good job in apprehending wrongdoers across this country.

So I want to thank the gentleman for his very appropriate amendment here, and I urge my colleagues for their support.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to rise in very strong support of the gentleman from Alabama's (Mr. Davis) amendment. I think it is a very important one to support our land grant institutions, and those that are historically black colleges and Tuskegee Institute. If you think about it, if you look at the budget the President presented to the Congress, the funding for the 1890 land grant institutions was actually cut three times as deeply as funding for the 1862 land grant institutions under the President's submittal. And so the cuts fall more harshly on those institutions that have an enormous load to carry in helping to bring up the talent to perform the research at those colleges which often gets shortchanged because people are spending so much of their time teaching.

I think only an administration that really does not understand what these institutions do could cut the funding three times as deeply as the other trims that were made in the budget. It has been very interesting to watch the President tour Africa. In having worked with our colleagues over the years to try to get linkages between our historically black colleges and Tuskegee Institute with African institutions to try to draw linkages halfway across the world, I know how difficult it has been. It has been hard to get those kinds of agreements to occur, to give these institutions a chance to embrace the 21st century and create the kind of global connections and specialized knowledge that rests in these institutions.

So I think the gentleman makes a very reasonable proposal here for $1.5 million to be directed to the institutions for facilities and $2 million for capacity building for the 1890s institutions, offsetting that $3.5 million from the common computing environment.

When I look at what happened over the weekend with all the news coming out about credit cards over at the Department of Agriculture and some of the internal problems that they are having, I know one thing: when you invest in the Historically Black Colleges and Universities and the Tuskegee Institute, you are investing in people; you are investing in the future where knowledge is so important to propel economic growth including in some of the most hollowed out parts of the country where agriculture has to be the lodestar industry. These institutions provide hope and opportunity for people who were traditionally excluded from other institutions of learning in this country.

So I think that the gentleman has correctly awakened this Congress and the administration to what is not just fair but appropriate and will help to provide opportunity in many quarters. So I want to strongly support the Davis amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Rehberg- Hooley amendment to say that the Committee bill provision indeed subverts the law. This Rehberg-Hooley provision was included in the farm bill. But when the opponents of that law found an opening in the subcommittee of agriculture appropriations to try to subvert the law, they took that opportunity. And so what we are talking about here is changing the law of our country that was passed here, as well as passed in the other body, and signed into law. We surely had plenty of consideration. That is number one.

My second point is this amendment is being offered at a time when we have the highest number of meat recalls in the country's history. God forbid you are the parent of someone who just died from eating contaminated meat. I find it very interesting that those who oppose this say there are going to be all these high costs and all these problems. Do Members know that not one producer in Ohio has complained to me about this law? I represent cattlemen and cattlewomen. They raise a lot of different kinds of animals in our region. Producers want the labeling. In fact, the Ohio producers, the Great Lakes producers, are working on their own electronic ear tags because they do not want their meat mixed with other stuff that they do not know where it comes from. They want to be able to offer a quality product at a competitive price and get it on the shelves of the supermarket. The problem is that the supermarkets deny shelf space to independent producers.

We know who wants this law subverted. It is not the ranchers; it is not the farmers. It is the people who want to make money off them. Any decent business person wants labeling of their product. Our father operated a family grocery and when he made his meatloafs, when he made his sausages, we had our own label tape that we pealed and put right on the package. We were so proud of his products. Our market was called Supreme Market, and to this day it sold the best meat I ever ate, the best sausage I ever ate. We were proud to label it. Good producers want labels on their quality products.

In Ohio, the Great Lakes Family Farms has a special verification program. They eartag animals with all relevant information. They know what shots the animal got. They know which feed lot it was on and how much it weighed at 6 months, at 8 months. They know everything because they know their customers want to know, and that local label gives them a niche in the market to be able to offer quality meat.

Mr. Chairman, in an era when the consumer wants to know, why is the Republican leadership trying to subvert the law and not give us as consumers the right to know where our meat comes from? It is simply because if you are going to mix in Argentinian beef or mix in some other kind of meat at the store, you do not want your customers to know. If you have some Uruguayan skinny steer that was wandering somewhere around Latin America, and then you are going to take some of that meat and blend it in with Ohio beef, you do not want anybody to know because you are going to make just as much money on that package.

But the farmers know how to label. They are doing it already. They are doing it in our region, and those electronic ear tags are so complete and with technology being what it is today, we can know everything about an animal, even who its mother and father were.

Do not give me this baloney it is going to be so much more expensive. Our farmers are already doing it. Ohio farmers can lead the way. In fact, the American Farm Bureau supports the law. It does not support subverting the law. They support country-of-origin labeling. In the letter that they have sent to us, they say those products should be labeled at the retail level. With increased trade, more products are being imported into the United States and the farm bureau is working with the agricultural marketing services to implement a program with the least amount of burden and cost to producers.

So in addition to all of the names that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) read into the Record, I will include a letter from the American Farm Bureau.

Mr. Chairman, Members might have noticed the recent stories about mad cow disease, BSE, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, that is up in Canada now. We have to know where our meat comes from, and people who raise meat should be responsible for it, just like my father was responsible for his products. They ought to be proud of what they are producing and not ashamed, and not try to hide something on a package that when you take the hamburger out, it looks red on the outside and it is all brown on the inside. We all know what they are doing. We understand what that is all about.

I think it is a worthy amendment. We have the technology to do it. I will place in the Record what the 4-H requires of our students as one of its projects to have labeling of beef. This is not rocket science. It can be done.

American Farm Bureau Federation,

Washington, DC, June 24, 2003.

Hon. Marcy Kaptur,

House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Kaptur: The American Farm Bureau

Federation commends the Appropriations Committee for timely

action on the FY04 agriculture spending bill. We ask that you

consider the following information as the Appropriations

Committee acts on the bill this week.

We support full funding for the Farm Security and Rural

Investment Act of 2002 (FSRIA). Unfavorable weather

conditions, uncertainties involved with international trade,

the value of the dollar and record high input costs have

converged to produce a turbulent and difficult time for

agriculture. The industry has suffered through several

consecutive years of historic low market prices and weather

disasters. The new farm law helps address problems faced by

American farmers and ranchers and it provides unprecedented

funds for our nation's conservation needs. Changes in farm

bill programs would be devastating not only to farmers and

ranchers but the rural economy as well. Consequently, the

Farm Bureau strongly encourages you to avoid making changes

to FSRIA in the FY04 appropriations process.

We commend the Committee for maintaining full funding of

farm bill commodity programs. It is imperative that counter-

cyclical payment rates, loan rates and direct payments be

preserved as adopted in FSRIA. We are opposed to any changes

in current payment limitations for direct payments, counter-

cyclical payments, loan deficiency payments (LDP) and

marketing loan gains (MLG), including a separate payment

limitation for the peanut program. Current rules on spouses,

three-entities, generic certificates and actively engaged

requirements should be retained.

AFBF supports country-of-origin labeling (COOL) as passed

in the 2002 farm bill. Many farmers and ranchers believe that

the products they grow in the United States should be labeled

a product of the United States at the retail sales level.

With increased trade, more products are being imported into

the United States, giving the consumers greater choices at

the marketplace. Farm Bureau is working with the Agricultural

Marketing Service (AMS) at USDA to implement the program with

the least amount of burden and costs to producers. We are

disappointed the legislation blocks further work by USDA to

implement country-of-origin labeling for meat and poultry

products. We ask that you support the restoration of funding

for this important program.

Farm bill conservation programs should be fully funded.

Full implementation of the Environmental Quality Incentive

Program (EQIP) and Conservation Security Program (CSP) is key

to assisting agricultural producers in complying with

environmental regulations and addressing important

conservation issues nationwide. Program funding for technical

assistance is essential if conservation programs are to be

successful. While we are pleased that the bill increases

funding for conservation operations activities, we are

disappointed that funding for CSP is blocked and limits have

been placed on EQIP.

The development of alternative energy sources is not only

significant to the advancement of American agriculture but

also is vital to enhancing our nation's energy security. The

2002 farm bill contained an energy title that includes

provisions for federal procurement of bio-based products,

bio-refinery development grants, a biodiesel fuel education

program, renewable energy development program, renewable

energy systems, a bioenergy program and biomass research and

development. These programs will assist rural economic

development as well as increase our nation's energy

independence. We are disappointed that the bill under

consideration does not include funding for key programs that

promote alternative energy sources.

Thank you for your consideration of these issues of

importance to farmers and ranchers.

Sincerely,

Bob Stallman,

President.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I just want to commend the gentlewoman from Guam for bringing these issues to our attention and to say what a great leader she is on agriculture for the insular areas. We really, without her leadership, would not have been made aware. I know both the chairman and I, as ranking member, are very grateful to her, and we look forward to working with her through conference and for a final bill to be produced.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

I rise in strong support of the amendment by my very dedicated colleague from New York. His amendment would prohibit for human consumption any meat or meat food product derived from a downed animal.

I might say to my dear friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), a recognized leader in agriculture, that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has already as part of its procedures adopted regulations that ban the purchase of meat from downed animals by its own procurement agencies. So let there be no mistake that our Department of Agriculture believes that it already has the authority to take that action internally.

Let me also say that the Department has estimated that nationally about 190,000 animals every year get so sick that they are unable to stand or walk and they are dragged to slaughter facilities and many of them end up in our food supply. But only about 5 percent of those animals are tested for serious diseases such as mad cow disease.

Now, many probably know that the recent mad cow found in Canada was a downed animal; that the president of the Alberta Beef Producers remarked about ``cows too sick to walk, too sick to stand have no business being part of the food system. This animal should have never left the farm.''

A 2001 study from Germany found that downed animals were anywhere from 10 to 240 times more likely to test positive for BSE than were ambulatory cows. And we all agree, I think we all know, that downed cattle have a higher risk of having BSE, and we should not be sending these animals to slaughter where they may ultimately end up on somebody's dinner table.

Farm Sanctuary used the Freedom of Information Act to analyze USDA slaughter house records for 938 facilities from 1999 through June 2001. They found 73 percent of downed animals passed for human consumption while 27 percent were condemned. But startlingly, among the downed animals approved for human consumption, included afflictions such as gangrene, malignant cancers and pneumonia. These were common.

I think the heart of the gentleman from New York's (Mr. Ackerman) proposal is, why are we sending these animals that should be euthanized and disposed of to auction markets and slaughter houses where they will contaminate healthy animals and, indeed, human health?

The August 2001 issue of ``Dairy Herd Management'' named downed animals as the most important area where the industry needs to clean up its act. So I want to rise in support of the Ackerman amendment. I think the gentleman is moving us all, moving the country toward a better standard, a higher standard. The USDA has already recognized that standard and adopted on its own meat procurement practices. I want to thank the gentleman for helping move America ahead. I think this amendment's consideration today will go a long way in helping to clean up this problem for the American people.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

I will not use the full time. I just wanted to say to my good friend from Virginia, the chairman of the authorizing committee, that the normal way, place the animal would be downed would be at the slaughterhouse anyway.

The point we are trying to make is do not put it in the food chain. That is the heart of the gentleman from New York's (Mr. Ackerman) amendment which he has not changed. So I just wanted to clarify that, and I also am concerned that at that slaughter facility that that diseased animal not contaminate the other animals. So there is a tremendous burden on that slaughterhouse, but the point of the gentleman from New York's (Mr. Ackerman) argument and amendment is do not put that sick animal in the food chain.

I support his amendment, and I thank the gentleman for offering it.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 2673) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes; and pending that motion, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that general debate be confined to the bill, and be limited to not to exceed 1 hour, the time to be equally divided and controlled by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and myself.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. BONILLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring before the House today the fiscal year 2004 appropriations bill for Agriculture, Rural Development, the Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies.

My goal this year has been to produce a bipartisan bill, and I believe we have done a good job in reaching that goal.

The Subcommittee began work on this bill with the submission of the President's Budget on February 3rd. We had ten public hearings beginning on February 26th, and we completed our hearings on March 20th. The transcripts of these hearings, the Administration's official statements, the detailed budget requests, several thousand questions for the record and the statements of Members and the public are all contained in eight hearing volumes.

The Subcommittee and full Committee marked up the bill on June 17th and June 25th, respectively.

We have tried very hard to accommodate the requests of Members, and to provide increases for critical programs. We received more than 2,380 individual requests for specific spending, from almost every member of the House. Reading all of the mail I received, I can confirm to you that the interest in this bill is completely bipartisan. However, I would point out that my own support for a member's needs is dependent on that member's support of the Committee in general, and of this bill in particular.

This bill does have very limited increases over fiscal year 2003, or over the budget request, for programs that have always enjoyed strong bipartisan support. Those increases include:

Agricultural Research Service, $39 million above the request.

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, $38 million above last year, and $31 million above the request.

Food Safety and Inspection Service, $30 million above last year.

Farm Service Agency, $33 million above last year.

Natural Resources Conservation Service, $23 million over last year.

Rural Community Advancement Program, $223 million above the request.

Food and Drug Administration, $14 million over last year.

Mr. Chairman, we all refer to this bill as an agriculture bill, but it does far more than assisting basic agriculture. It also supports human nutrition, the environment, and food, drug and medical safety. This is a bill that will deliver benefits to every one of our constituents every day, no matter what kind of district they represent.

I would say to all Members that they can support this bill and tell all of their constituents that they voted to improve their lives while maintaining fiscal responsibility.

The bill is a bipartisan product with a lot of hard work and input from both sides of the aisle. I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who serves as the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. I would also like to thank all my subcommittee colleagues: the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh); the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston); the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt); the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham); the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson); the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode); the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood); the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro); the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey); the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr); and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).

In particular, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, for all her good work on this bill this year and the years in the past.

Mr. Chairman I would like to include at this point in the Record tabular material relating to the bill.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JY03.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JY03.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JY03.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JY03.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JY03.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JY03.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JY03.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JY03.008

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

(Mr. BONILLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, as we all know, we are proceeding with this bill under regular order. I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), my ranking member, for once again helping to produce the best bill we possibly could under the circumstances. We were working under some incredible fiscal limitations this year versus last year, and this is a bill that was produced by a subcommittee that has a history of working together.

The last time we had our bill on the floor, we had over 400 votes in support of the bill; and I am very proud of that. I think every member of the subcommittee understands that we try to work with every last person and try to honor every request that they have. We cannot always do everything that everybody wants, but we certainly give it our best shot. This is the year, as many Members know, that we also had to deal with over 2,300 individual requests. That is a lot of requests that our good staff has to keep track of day in and day out as we moved toward this day; and I would like to commend the staff, both the majority and the minority, as they have worked so diligently especially in the last few days around the clock to try to get us to this point on the floor so we could have a good bill to present to the folks.

So I am very proud of this product. Again, nobody always gets everything they want in bills like this, but we certainly have done the best we can.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I will be brief and to the point. This has been a tough budget year. This is a tough bill, but it is a fair bill, and the gentleman brings up some very good points that need to be addressed. But, again, having done the best we can possibly do under the circumstances, I hope that people understand that we wished we could have done more but we were just not able to.

Certainly the accounts that this amendment would increase were not treated unfairly in any way, and this is how they are funded in the bill. For example, the Office of Civil Rights is at last year's level plus increased pay cost. Departmental Administration is at last year's level plus increased pay cost. Hispanic-Serving Institutions is held at last year's level, so there is no cut there, which in this day and age I believe people should be pleased with an outcome like that. The Outreach Program is also at last year's level.

The gentleman's amendment would do the following: It would more than double the Office of Civil Rights, giving that office a 104 percent increase; increase the Departmental Administration account by 5 percent; increase Hispanic-Service Institutions programs by 15 percent; and increase the Outreach Program by a whooping 144 percent.

Let me emphasize that if we had the money to do this we would be doing cartwheels in supporting these kinds of increases, but we are doing the best we can under the limitations we have in putting this bill together.

The money that would be taken from the USDA's Common Computing Environment Account, and while that does not sound like a grand program, let me emphasize that this takes care of the way that a lot of these programs are processed, like the work at the Farm Service Agency, the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Rural Economic and Community Development Programs. This amendment would take $8.6 million away from USDA's ability to meet those needs, and that would indeed create a lot of hardship out in the heartland.

Mr. Chairman, we worked very hard to present a well-considered and fair bill to the House. I ask Members to stick with the committee and defeat this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, there is not a Member of this body that does not believe in treating animals humanely. However, I oppose this amendment for several reasons:

First, the $800,000 that would go to the Inspector General would go to dogfighting and cockfighting enforcement, and it would cut buildings and facilities funding for rent and maintenance that are already underfunded.

The Inspector General's office has told us that enforcement of this will be done at a minimal level since this is a misdemeanor offense. Now, one could argue the pluses and minuses on whether it should be a more serious offense, but these are misdemeanors that are dealt with by local law enforcement agencies from around the country, and they cannot afford to devote their resources at the IG level because of this reason. The IG tells us that one case alone could cost $800,000.

Second, one of the reasons that we are debating this amendment today is that the Humane Society of the United States points out that this vote will be counted on the Humane Scorecard this year. The only reason that this item is even on their scorecard is that we have addressed all other of their concerns in this bill. We provided a $437,000 increase for animal welfare, $1.1 million more for regulatory enforcement in the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and fully funded the enforcement of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act in the Food Safety and Inspection Service.

If the sponsors of this amendment were serious about this, programs that the HSUS supported like the ones that I just mentioned are the ones that would be cut to pay for this amendment, but then that would force them to prioritize like the rest of us have to do.

If every Member of the House brought an amendment to the floor just because they did not get every last nickel that they wanted, we would be here all day and we could never get this bill done.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to not vote against this amendment simply because I am suggesting that they do, but vote against this amendment because of the following statement by an HSUS Vice President who said, ``The life of an ant and that of any child should be granted equal consideration.''

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, once again the gentleman brings up some very good points in his amendment, but we have done the best we possibly could under the limitations we have this year; and the offset the gentleman is looking at, again, would hurt the implementation of a lot of programs that we have discussed earlier. So for that reason I would oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, there is strong bipartisan opposition to this amendment in this body. It is interesting to note on this occasion when amendments are presented before this body how much misinformation is presented. For the proponents of this amendment to in any way indicate that you cannot put labels on any meat products at this time is absurd. This is a free country.

Any producer, any retailer right now can stick a label that says ``Made in America'' on any aisle in any frozen food section, in any section of the grocery store if they choose to do that.

The misinformation about whether or not this amendment affects mad cow disease is one of those fear-mongering arguments that is often times made in this town and around the country when you are trying to reach people at the emotional level and not at all talking about the truth in substance about the issue at hand.

This country-of-origin labeling on meat products that is in the bill, the prohibition on funding, has absolutely nothing to do with mad cow disease. But again, this argument is being pulled off the shelf to try to scare people into voting for this.

This prohibition that we have put in this bill simply says that USDA will not be able to work on enforcing, promulgating, developing any kind of regulation for a year until there can be more ample study and understanding of the bill.

This country-of-origin labeling provision that was put in the farm bill last year is controversial and costly. Many of our producers out there are shaking in their boots right now wondering about the liability that they would be faced with, the action that could be taken against them by people who would simply hold them accountable for not putting the proper label on their product. It could drive them out of business.

Grocery stores in this country, I do not care what part of the country you live in, if you have got a Safeway, if you have got a, like in Texas, an HEB Food Store or an Albertson's, all of the people who run those grocery stores are opposed to this amendment because they have a tremendous liability laying before them if that product is not labeled appropriately.

So if you are interested, any Member who votes for this amendment that is

being presented by my colleague today would in essence would be voting to increase the grocery bill and create sticker shock the next time Americans go through the meat section in a grocery store. So that is what you would have to face if you vote for this amendment.

The cost of this implementation of country-of-origin labeling has been estimated on the low end so far by those who have been working on this at USDA to be $2 billion. Overall most people agree that that is a very conservative cost estimate; and, in fact, the cost of implementing this would be much, much higher and guess who is going to pay for that, Mr. Chairman? That is why we are completely opposed to this amendment.

This has bipartisan support to be opposed to this amendment. The chairman of the authorizing committee, the ranking member, so many others that are part of the Hispanic Caucus, the Black Caucus, all across the board, again, members of the authorizing committee are also opposed to this. And they are working on this issue, having hearings, trying to deal with this country-of-origin labeling in the appropriate way. We are just asking with the provision in our bill to give them the time to do that.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 50 minutes and that the time be equally divided.

The Chairman is correct.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the distinguished chairman of the authorizing Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) as a demonstration of strong bipartisan support in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley), a Member who is considered an expert in this field.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) who has a great expertise on this subject.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

Mr. Chairman, I have no requests for time, and I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Once again I want to reiterate that often times in this town, unfortunately, truth and substance are set aside and emotional pleas are made in order to advance a certain cause. The opposition to this amendment is supported strongly. The opposition is strongly supported by thousands, millions of red-blooded Americans out there who are either producers or they are part of the processing of meat. They are running grocery stores in neighborhoods all over the country. They do not want this provision implemented until it can be studied further

and analyzed and done the right way. And again ultimately if this is implemented, the bills at the grocery store, there will be sticker shock in many of the grocery aisles out there as Americans wonder what happened; how did Congress implement such a libelous costly regulation so quickly without even taking the time to do so.

And let us also understand that any producer out there can now put labels on whatever they would like. There is an implication here somehow that there is some prohibition now on putting a label on any meat product. They can do that now today anytime they want. Also the implication somehow that this is going to threaten our food supply, I am delighted that many of the authorizers have stepped forward today in a bipartisan way to state clearly this is about marketing, this is not about any kind of food-safety issue.

This is, again, a 1-year prohibition on implementation or promulgation or developing of any regulations. So, again, the misinformation that has been presented that this is somehow an effort to kill this permanently is misguided. This appropriations bill simply runs for 1 year.

Finally, I would like to state very clearly that the Bush administration, the administration has put out a statement saying that the administration supports the committee's position on country-of- origin labeling for meat or meat products. So there is strong bipartisan support for our position on this issue. Everyone, again, from the chairman of the authorizing committee; the ranking member; the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus; the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) of the Congressional Black Caucus, again across the board the widespread support that we have on our side in taking a position I think is very clear.

And, again, if we would look at the substance in truth about what we are debating here, we would hope to defeat this amendment resoundingly.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and ask unanimous consent to control the 5 minutes in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the authorizing committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I would thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) for making some excellent points in opposition to this amendment. He is absolutely correct.

Over $872 million is the figure that we are under last year's budget. We are $136 million under the budget request. I would ask the gentleman proposing the amendment, is this not enough? We are learning to tighten the belt. We have cut the budget. We are lowering spending on this bill and still trying to deal with the needs in this country, that this country has in the areas of agriculture. So I cannot more firmly state my opposition to this amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado and would respectfully ask him to withdraw the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would just once again state my strong opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman raises some very legitimate points about the need for funding in this area. However, this amendment was presented to us at the 11th hour, and it is not even clear under the language of this amendment how this money would be administered. So we would be delighted to try to work with the gentleman down the road between here and conference to see if we can do something on this. However, at the 11th hour like this, when we are presented with an amendment, I must oppose it at this time.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we would be happy to have our staffs work together on that.

Again, just hearing about this amendment at this time, it is not realistic to say we are going to guarantee a solution, but I think that the history that we have on this subcommittee to try to work with Members to work through these problems is real, and we would be happy to do that.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is to strike a provision from the Conservation Operations account that prohibits the funds in this account from being used to pay for the salaries and expenses of personnel to provide technical assistance for several mandatory conservation programs.

This amendment is in keeping with an agreement that I made with the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), in hopes that we can ensure that there are adequate funds available for conservation technical assistance. I would point out that the 2002 Farm Bill included an increase of more than $17 billion for conservation programs, but I am committed to work with the chairman to try to come up with the solution to funding of conservation technical assistance.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentlewoman for bringing this matter to our attention. It is a very important issue. We recognize the needs of these institutions to be unique and deserving of additional support. The committee has included report language encouraging the Department to better assist the Land Grant Universities in the insular areas and provide us a report describing what steps the Department is currently taking to meet their unique needs.

I look forward to working with the gentlewoman and delegates to ensure that the needs of the Land Grant Universities in the insular areas are met the best way we possibly can.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on the pending amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) and any amendments thereto be limited to 30 minutes, to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the authorizing committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the distinguished ranking member of the authorizing committee.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the authorizing committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say that I greatly appreciate the points that the authorizers have made today in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment this afternoon together with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) to provide $800,000 for improved enforcement for the Federal animal fighting law. It is not just enough to fight a law, Mr. Chairman. It must be enforced.

In May, 160 Representatives and Senators requested this $800,000 increase for animal fighting enforcement in letters to the Committee on Appropriation's Subcommittee on Agriculture. The broad, bipartisan support reflects our constituents' concern for meaningful enforcement of the Federal animal fighting law.

Fifty-five State and local sheriff's offices, State police departments from around the country, including Kansas, my home State of Oregon, Colorado, Texas, West Virginia, Michigan, Wisconsin and others, have called on Congress to provide this money so that USDA will improve its enforcement for the animal fighting law and have a stronger partner in their efforts.

The increase we seek in our amendment would be offset by a cut of $800,000 in the agricultural building and facilities and rental payments account, only one-half of 1 percent, leaving over $156 million.

Mr. Chairman, in the 27 years since Congress first prohibited most interstate and foreign commerce of animals for fighting, USDA has pursued only a handful of cases, despite receiving a steady stream of tips from informants and requests for State and local police on illegal movement of fighting dogs and birds across State lines.

I was pleased to have the support of so many of our colleagues last year in enacting provisions to the farm bill to close loopholes in the Federal animal fighting law. Now it is time to ensure that the USDA take seriously its responsibilities and has the resources to enforce the law.

The amendment would provide the $800,000 for the Office of Inspector General to focus on animal fighting cases, working closely with State and local law enforcement personnel to complement their efforts.

While dogfighting is banned in all 50 States and cockfighting is banned in 48 States, the Federal Government must be involved, for participants in animal fights often come together from several States at a time and animals are moved across State lines.

This is not some innocent pastime. Dogfighting and cockfighting are barbaric activities in which animals are given drugs to make them hyper-aggressive and drugs to clot their blood more quickly so they can continue fighting. They are pushed by their handlers to fight even after they have suffered grievous injuries, such as pierced lungs and gouged eyes.

Dogfights and cockfights not only are deplorable animal abuse, but they are integrally involved with illegal gambling, drug traffic and violence to people who participate in these activities.

It is well documented that animal fighters often bring their children to these spectacles, sending a terrible message to them about animal cruelty and violence. Some dogfighters steal pets to use as bait for training their dogs. Some abandon fighting animals, leaving them to roam neighborhoods and wreak havoc. Any dog bred and trained to fight poses a public safety risk.

Mr. Chairman, in October of 2002, the Exotic Newcastle Disease began spreading rapidly across the Southwest United States. Exotic Newcastle Disease is a highly contagious viral disease that affects respiratory, digestive and nervous systems of all birds. This outbreak cost taxpayers upwards of $100 million in containment and compensation fees, and it is very probable the outbreak originated from cockfighting birds imported from Mexico.

According to the State Veterinarian and Director of Animal Health and Food Services in California, game fowl and their owners have played a major role in the dissemination of this virus due to their high mobility related to meetings, training, breeding and fighting activities on a regular basis.

The Texas Poultry Federation takes a similar position in its letter, stating that, cockfighting has spread Exotic Newcastle Disease as their birds travel extensively and come in close contact at fights. It makes no sense to allow illegal cockfighting operations to continue, putting our flocks and livelihood at risk.

Mr. Chairman, surely spending $800,000 to crack down on animal fighting is a smart investment to help prevent the spread of costly future diseases, especially when a significant portion of the eradication expenses the Federal Government has already incurred in the recent outbreak, $11.5 million, according to USDA records, went to compensate owners of birds believed to be illegal fighting cocks.

Why let this illegal industry continue to thrive unchecked?

Animal fighting is no longer simply an animal welfare issue, it is an epidemic that is costing taxpayers millions of dollars, threatening our food supply, and destroying the hard work of American farmers. It promotes illegal gambling and drug activities and puts the public at risk. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to just respond very briefly to two points of the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee.

What he describes with the notion of this being a misdemeanor is part of the catch-22 that some of the people in this Congress who are fronting for the illegal fighting animal activities have produced for us. When we had an amendment on the floor that was approved in the farm bill last year, it was to increase the penalties so that it would be easier to pursue. But, sadly, in conference, contrary to the will of the House, these provisions were watered down. So now we can plead, well, it is only a misdemeanor so we should not be involved with it.

The fact is, as I mentioned in my statement, 55 local jurisdictions and State jurisdictions in law enforcement have asked us to come forward, because while these provisions may be misdemeanors, they are tied up in a network of illegal activity that breeds violence, drug, and other activities and is serious. It is not just animal cruelty, if somebody wants to dismiss that.

Second, the gentleman's argument that we cannot afford it I think is a false economy. First of all, I am taking from an account that they have already significantly reduced. It is an area that would already have $156 million. We are only speaking of one-half of 1 percent, but the $800,000 here has the opportunity to prevent vast losses to the Federal Government.

As I pointed out, Exotic Newcastle Disease and all the evidence suggests it is illegal game-fighting that has spread it throughout the Southwest. That is the conclusion from the gentleman's home State of Texas, from California, and has cost us upwards of $100 million that we have had to spend tracking these down, eradicating poultry and other birds and compensating people, including $11.5 million for what are probably illegal fighting cocks.

I would suggest that the gentleman, with all due respect, is not being responsive to the overall economic impact, and it is not simply that we just dismiss as something not worthy of more law enforcement attention. It does not get the attention because the interests that are sympathetic to animal fighting, illegal animal fighting, have deliberately fought to have strong enforcement provisions. The least we can do, the least we can do is provide the resources within the extent of the existing law to cut it back, stop the illegal activity, and prevent the waste of tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money.

Mr. Chairman, attached is a letter signed by 122 members requesting this $800,000 increase, as well as a letter of support from the Humane Society of the United States.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, May 23, 2003.

Hon. Henry Bonilla,

Chairman, Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rayburn

House Office Bldg., Washington, DC.

Hon. Marcy Kaptur,

Ranking Member, Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture,

Longworth House Office Bldg., Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Bonilla and Ranking Member Kaptur: We are

writing to thank you for your outstanding support in FY 2003

for improved enforcement by the U.S. Department of

Agriculture of key animal welfare laws, and to urge you to

``hold the line'' in FY 2004 so that this effort can be

sustained. Your leadership is making a great difference in

helping to protect the welfare of millions of animals across

the country, including those at commercial breeding

facilities, laboratories, zoos, circuses, airlines, and

slaughterhouses. As you know, better enforcement will also

benefit people by helping to prevent: (1) injuries to

slaughterhouse workers from animals struggling in pain; (2)

orchestrated dogfights and cockfights that often involve

illegal gambling, drug traffic, and human violence; (3) the

sale of unhealthy pets by commercial breeders commonly

referred to as ``puppy mills''; (4) laboratory conditions

that may impair the scientific integrity of animal based

research; (5) risks of disease transmission from, and

dangerous encounters with, wild animals in or during public

exhibition; and (6) injuries and death of pets on commercial

airline flights due to mishandling and exposure to adverse

environmental conditions.

For FY 2004, we want to ensure that the important work made

possible by the FY 2003 budget is continued, that newly hired

and trained inspectors will be able to stay on the job, and

that resources will be used in the most effective ways

possible to carry out these key laws. Specific areas of

concern are as follows:

office of inspector general/$800,000 increase for animal fighting

enforcement

In last year's Farm Bill, Congress enacted provisions that

were overwhelmingly supported in both chambers to close

loopholes in the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) regarding

cockfighting and dogfighting. Since 1976, when Congress first

prohibited most interstate and foreign commerce in animals

for fighting, USDA has pursued no cockfighting cases and only

three dogfighting cases, despite rampant activity across the

country. USDA has apparently received innumerable tips from

informants and requests to assist with state and local

prosecutors, but routinely ignored or declined such requests.

It is time for USDA to take seriously its responsibility to

enforce the portion of the AWA dealing with animal fighting

ventures. Dogfighting and cockfighting are barbaric

activities in which animals are drugged to heighten their

aggression and forced to keep fighting even after they've

suffered grievous injuries, such as pierced lungs and gouged

eyes. Animal fighting is almost always associated with

illegal gambling, and also often involves illegal drug

traffic and violence toward people. Dogs bred and trained to

fight endanger public safety. Cockfighting has

been linked with the recent outbreak of Exotic Newcastle

Disease that has already destroyed many poultry flocks and

cost taxpayers more than $40 million for containment and

compensation, with costs estimated to rise as high as $250-

$500 million.

Given the dangerous nature of animal fighting enforcement

work, we believe that the department's chief law enforcement

arm--the Office of Inspector General (OIG)--is best suited to

lead this effort. We therefore respectfully request an

increase of $800,000 for the OIG to focus on animal fighting

cases and inclusion of bill language directing the Secretary

to coordinate intelligence gathering, investigation, and

prosecution of animal fighting cases, pursuant to Section 26

of the AWA, through the OIG, working with local and state law

enforcement personnel to complement their efforts, and

drawing on other federal entities including the Attorney

General, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services, and

the Office of the General Counsel as needed.

Food Safety and Inspection Service/Humane Methods of Slaughter Act

(HMSA) Enforcement

We greatly appreciate the inclusion of $5 million in the FY

2003 bill to hire at least 50 inspectors whose sole

responsibility will be to ensure that livestock are treated

humanely and rendered unconscious before they are hung upside

down, skinned, dismembered, scalded, or killed. Having these

new inspectors focus on unloading, handling, stunning, and

killing of animals will bring much-needed attention to

slaughter plant practices that have had little oversight in

recent years. We also appreciate your inclusion of language

specifying that the ongoing activities of 17 District

Veterinary Medical Specialists hired as a result of $1

million provided in the FY 2001 Supplemental should be

limited to HMSA enforcement rather than the various unrelated

duties with which they had been charged. And we commend you

for directing the General Accounting Office to review and

report by July 1, 2003 on the scope and frequently of HMSA

violations, with ``recommendations on the extent to which

additional resources for inspection personnel, training, and

other agency functions are needed to properly regulate

slaughter facilities in the areas of HMSA enforcement.''

There are nearly 900 federally inspected slaughter plants

in the U.S., handling millions of animals each day. In

addition to requesting continued funds in FY 2004 to sustain

at least 50 new inspectors and the 17 positions mentioned

above, we hope you will give full consideration to any

recommendations the GAO may have for enhancing enforcement of

this important--and very basic--law.

APHIS/Animal Welfare Enforcement

Thanks to funding increases in the past four years,

Congress has enabled USDA to begin to reverse a serious

decline in the number of AWA compliance inspections. However,

the President's FY 2004 budget proposal--which suggests $1.7

million less for the Animal Care division than in FY 2003--

would fail to cover the salaries of recently-hired inspectors

and substantially undo the gains Congress has made possible.

Moreover, there is still much room for improvement. Many

facilities continue to escape oversight for long periods of

time, giving rise to situations that threaten both human and

animal health and safety. Nearly half of the sites that do

get inspected are found to have apparent violations of the

minimum standards under the Act and, therefore, follow-up

visits are badly needed. We urge you to sustain Animal

Welfare funding at the FY 2003 appropriated level of $16.4

million, in order to keep the current number of inspectors

(approximately 100 to oversee about 10,000 sites).

Again, we are very grateful for the Subcommittee's

leadership in addressing enforcement needs for key animal

welfare laws. We hope you will stay the course, so that funds

necessary to administer these laws effectively will continue

to be available and will be appropriately used. We look

forward to working with you in the coming year, and thank you

for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Christopher Smith, Earl Blumenauer, Thomas Tancredo,

Robert Andrews, Mark Green, Elton Gallegly, Roscoe

Bartlett, Gary Ackerman, David Wu, William Delahunt,

James Moran, Louise Slaughter, Steven LaTourette, Frank

LoBiondo, Dennis Kucinich, David Price, James McGovern,

Steve Israel, Tammy Baldwin, Bob Filner, Barney Frank,

Tim Ryan, Rush Holt, Rick Larsen, Jerry Costello, Jim

Leach, Steven Rothman, Nancy Johnson, James Langevin,

Michael Ferguson, Gary Ackerman, George Miller, Carolyn

Maloney, Mark Udall, Vic Snyder, Jim Saxton, Rob

Simmons, Anthony Weiner, Donald Payne, Johnny Isakson,

Richard Neal, Frank Wolf,

Neil Abercrombie, Dennis Moore, Bill Pascrell, Jr., Ellen

Tauscher, Judy Biggert, Luis Gutierrez, Michael Doyle,

Karen McCarthy, Jerrold Nadler, Janice Schakowsky,

Robert Wexler, Phil English, Mike Thompson, Peter

DeFazio, Dale Kildee, Sherrod Brown, Frank Pallone,

Elijah Cummings, Zoe Lofgren, Robert Menendez, Jay

Inslee, Joseph Hoeffel III, Michael Bilirakis, Bernard

Sanders, Chris Shays, Henry Waxman, Brad Sherman,

Charles Rangel, Fred Upton, Tom Lantos, Hilda Solis,

John Tierney, Peter Deutsch, Edward Whitfield, Lloyd

Doggett, Edolphus Towns, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Barbara

Lee, Major Owens, Adam Smith, Eliot Engel, Michael

Honda, Lane Evans, Julia Carson, Corrine Brown, William

Clay, Jr., Brian Baird, Adam Schiff, Grace Napolitano,

Robert Matsui, Albert Wynn, Anthony Weiner, Martin

Meehan, Nicholas Lampson, Thomas Allen, Nancy Pelosi,

Patrick Kennedy, Sherwood Boehlert, Anna Eshoo, Sander

Levin, Shelby Berkley, James Clyburn, Howard Berman,

Jim McDermott, Nydia Velazquez, Gene Green, John Lewis,

Lynn Woolsey, Sanford Bishop, Jr., Charles Gonzalez,

Michael Capuano, Benjamin Cardin, Ed Case, Harold Ford,

Jr., Pete Stark, Stephen Lynch, William Lipinski,

Charles Bass, Clay Shaw, Jr., Jim Greenwood.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill. I commend the chairwoman, the chairman of the subcommittee, and the full committee chairman for their work in a very difficult task. They were handed a very difficult situation in which they would take the amount of revenue available for the much-needed rural development, agricultural conservation issues and did the best they could under a very difficult situation. But I commend them for that action and look forward to working with them throughout the process to do as good a job for American agriculture that continues to feed the United States.

We have the most abundant food supply, the best quality of food, the safest food supply at the lowest cost to our people than any other country in the world; and what we are about to debate today is what has contributed to that over the years. I urge the support of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill.

Once again, legislation relating to agriculture policy demonstrates the progress that can be made when a broadly-inclusive, bipartisan approach is taken towards solving national problems.

America's farmers and ranchers continue to struggle to survive as they face the global market. But while particular problem areas continue to plague the agricultural economy, overall there is reason for optimism that recovery in the farm and ranch sector is taking hold.

The Agriculture Department's Economic Research Service recently forecast that 2003 net farm income will be $46.2 billion; this is significantly higher than 2002, with both crop and livestock receipts predicted to increase. The 2002 Farm Bill--which was developed on a bipartisan basis, passed overwhelmingly in both Houses, and signed by the President--is part of the story for this improvement.

Mr. Chairman, this view of recovery in agriculture has to be qualified to a significant degree, however. Milk, livestock, and many crop prices have not recovered to the degree that would allow producers to resume significant capital investments. Also, much of the improvement shown in the net farm income figure is attributable to timing changes associated with programs enacted by last year's Farm Bill. And, of course, the rural economy continually must adjust to the rapid consolidation that continues to occur in farming and

ranching. And while these statistics demonstrate that conditions have improved for some of agriculture, many producers still find themselves faced with very difficult financial conditions.

So while total victory can't be claimed, I stress the point that inclusive development of agricultural policy has led to more optimistic conditions for the agricultural economy. Perhaps a similar approach to general economic policy would remove some of the doubt that clouds prospects for our economy in general.

Mr. Chairman, this partial improvement in the agricultural economy has been noticed in the cities. On June 16, the Wall Street Journal reported that the farm economy ``is in recovery and moving toward strength.'' The article discusses the very difficult times that have afflicted agriculture for the last five years, and cites rising commodity prices, a devalued dollar, improved weather, and resurgent imports as reasons to be bullish for agriculture.

But the article also makes it clear why the cities are taking note: the improving situation is a key factor behind improved economic conditions in middle America--which is recovering more quickly than the rest of the nation. I'll quote from the article: ``While farmers by themselves are a tiny part of the economy, they have a broad impact on it. The industries that sell to farmers and use farm products account for 12.3 percent of the country's gross domestic product and 16.7 percent of jobs, according to the Agriculture Department.''

Mr. Chairman, the Wall Street Journal and many other big city newspapers criticized the Farm Bill when it was passed. But if they read their own pages today, they'll see that this country has made a wise investment, and that the returns go well beyond the farmstead.

Mr. Chairman, the bill before the House today provides the funding needed to implement the farm bill's programs. These include the commodity income support programs, the greatest expansion in farm conservation spending in our history, the Food Stamp program, and foreign food aid. It also funds important research efforts--investments in our nation's future; crucial pest and disease eradication programs, and rural economic development.

Mr. Chairman, fiscally speaking these are tough times and the Appropriations Committee labored under very tight constraints in the development of this bill. While being diligent and confining themselves to their allocation, they have struck a responsible balance among the competing priorities. I congratulate Mr. Bonilla and Ms. Kaptur, Chairman Young and my colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Chairman, many of us have spent countless hours on country-of-origin labeling on the authorizing committee both during the discussion on the farm bill and since. The Committee on Agriculture has conducted a series of briefings on country-of-origin labeling to educate staff on the implementation of the requirements, and recently held a full committee hearing on the issue. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), chairman of the subcommittee, has indicated that he will hold additional hearings on this issue in the near future.

It is not my purpose to stand in opposition to the amendment to subvert the law. I am standing here saying we want this to work; and for it to work, it will take an additional 1 year of time to make it work.

I question the wisdom of a mandate to include on labels every piece of information that a random consumer survey identifies as something consumers want to know. Current U.S. food labeling requirements are based on the attributes of the food itself, such as nutritional composition, ingredients, special safety considerations such as presence of allergens and requirements of handling and safe use.

This was pointed out by the previous administration in a letter to the EU concerning biotechnology. Every additional piece of information we require on a label by government mandate diminishes slightly the information that is already there.

I have heard that Americans know where their shirts are made, Americans know where their cars are made, but not what they are putting in their mouth. I say what is wrong with this picture? Those who say that are right, we do not know where these things are made, but these items do not have to participate under guidelines even remotely similar to those included in the current COOL law. Members will notice their shirt may say ``Made in the USA,'' but it does not say where the cotton came from or where the dye that went into the shirt came from.

Be careful what we ask for when we stand on this floor and say we want to mandate something, just in case we get what we are asking for. Every single beef producer group that testified in front of the Committee on Agriculture testified very clearly that this is a marketing issue and not a food safety issue. Too many of us in this body right now tend to mix the two together in saying that meat that does not come from the United States is not safe. Please do not send that message to the consumer because the consumer today in America has the most abundant food supply, the best quality of food, the safest at the lowest cost to our people of any other country in the world; and when we begin to suggest that unless there is a certain label there will be a problem with the safety of the food, it is dangerous for producers. That is why most producers do not support the full intent of this law, and that is to mandate something that no one has yet figured out how to do.

We exempt most meat from even the applications of the law. Restaurants are exempted, for example. So let us be careful as we vote on this amendment today. And again I point out, this is not a food- safety issue. This is a marketing issue. If we are going to deal with the food safety, and I fully concur and fully intend to be back on this floor very, very soon with a food safety component, trace back. Our producers today are beginning to look at how can we truly certify where our meat comes from from a BSE standpoint. In Canada, they have a trace-back system. We do not have a trace-back system yet, but we will have one soon because producers all over the country recognize that we must have a way of tracing. We do not have it yet, but we will have one that will be supported by a majority of our producers.

This is one of those things that gets very emotional because there are those that tend to mix this up with food safety. I want to repeat for the third time, this is not a food-safety question. I absolutely support identifying where all food products come from to the best of our ability. I happen to believe, for example, that American lamb identified as such and Australian lamb identified as such is something that the consumer ought to know. We are working to get that kind of agreement and do it in a way that makes sense.

But if we implement this in the way that those who support this amendment are suggesting today, we are going to create some tremendous uncertainty. This has all kinds of trade implications. It has all kinds of food-safety implications. With all due respect to those offering this amendment, it is interesting that most of the producers supporting this do not deal with Canadian or Mexican cattle. If we want to ban all Canadian cattle, all Mexican cattle into the United States, then be prepared to have all United States cattle banned from country after country after country, because under trade agreements, reciprocation is something that we truly agree to. I urge Members to oppose this amendment and support the delay, not circumvention of the law, but a delay to get this right.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I will be glad to yield to my friend from New York at any time on the point, but I think some of the points the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Goodlatte) made need to be reemphasized.

Existing statutes and regulations are sufficient to address the issue of preventing conscious, nonambulatory livestock from being inhumanely handled prior to slaughter.

Now, there are differences of opinion as to what is ``inhumanely handled,'' and I respect those who have a different opinion than I have. Now, Federal and State veterinarians at slaughter establishments are best capable of identifying and segregating suspect animals from entering the food chain. FSIS personnel verify that disabled livestock handling procedures are carried out to ensure that nonambulatory animals are set apart and humanely slaughtered. That is what the chairman was pointing out will no longer happen if the gentleman's amendment is passed.

In accordance with the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act, FSIS inspectors conduct anti-mortem inspection of livestock. Unconscious, disabled livestock cannot receive anti- mortem inspection and must be condemned and disposed of in accordance with FSIS regulations and the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. Non- ambulatory, disabled livestock that have not received anti-mortem inspection and cannot be humanely moved must be humanely condemned before they may be transported from the slaughter establishment's premises.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

And that sick animal will never find its way into the food chain under the current law that we are enforcing today.

BSE was talked about. It is extremely critical that we do not create a situation in which downed animals which have very good food value, simply because they may have had a dislocated hip or a broken leg still have food value, not be discouraged from coming to the marketplace, which is exactly what the gentleman intends to do; and I respect his desire for doing that. But in the handling of livestock, it is extremely important that livestock continue to be handled as we are doing it under FSIS, particularly with the BSE question.

It is extremely important that BSE-suspect animals are tested; and, accordingly, right now USDA's aggressive BSE surveillance system targets these animals, the ones we are talking about for testing. During fiscal year 2001, USDA tested 5,272 head. In fiscal 2002, 19,990 head, more than 40 times the internationally recognized standard for appropriate surveillance for a country that has never detected BSE within its borders.

It is extremely important that the suspect animals get into the inspection system. But I fear because of those who believe that any animal that cannot walk should be immediately destroyed wherever it is, this will do some real harm potentially to the future of the very food safety issues that the gentleman is trying to correct.

Reclaiming my time, the chairman has been overly generous in sharing of his limited time with me.

I repeat, the picture the gentleman is showing, that sick animal will never find its way into the food chain. Period.

It does no service to this institution to continue to show that.

This amendment would create a disincentive to producers. The gentleman does not understand the cattle business as many in this body do. I understand the sentiments in what you are trying to correct, but the amendment would have a totally different result.

I thank the chairman for his generosity.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I think it is imperative that we distinguish between sick animals and downer animals. There is a big difference, and I think the author of the amendment and some of the arguments made, including by my good friend from Ohio, is tending to mix up downers and sick.

We all agree sick animals have no place in our food chain, period; and I would submit under current law that is a occurring 99.9999 percent of the time. No one can be perfect.

On the question of BSE, I worry about us continuing to be able to reassure the American public since in 2002 we tested 19,990 cattle, 40 times the international standard, but of those 19,990, 14,000 were downer animals. It is critical that we continue to look at downers to make sure they are not sick and remove them from the food chain, but when we read the gentleman's amendment today, I really respectfully say it would create a disincentive for producers to send downers to market.

We agree with the basic statement of keeping the animals out of the food chain that are sick. It is a question of how we best do it. Therefore, I respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment in the belief that it will not accomplish what we all agree we need to do, and that is keep sick animals out but allow downer animals that can be humanely consumed to continue to be presented so we can make that determination as to whether they are sick or consumable.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies for yielding me this time and for his leadership in making sure that we address the country of origin labeling issue correctly.

Many of my colleagues may not appreciate how hard the House Committee on Agriculture has worked on the country of origin labeling issue. Several years ago, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), then Subcommittee on Livestock and Horticulture chairman, and some of his colleagues began a process to explore this subject. They started out with the hope that it could be accomplished in a way to provide an effective tool for producers to earn more in the marketplace. The subcommittee proceeded to meet with interested parties and the administration to develop the idea.

Subsequently, the fiscal year 1999 Agriculture appropriations directed the Secretary to conduct a comprehensive study on the potential effects of the idea. During an April 28, 1999, Subcommittee on Livestock and Horticulture hearing, the Clinton administration testified about the ``variety of regulatory regimes'' for labeling that could be adopted and further asserted that they ``believe there would probably have to be some kind of paperwork traceback system.'' The GAO pointed out that ``there is going to be significant costs associated with compliance and enforcement.''

Concerned that the costs outweighed the benefits for producers, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and others turned their attention to working with USDA to develop a credible voluntary program that allowed producers and processors to work together. Meanwhile, the GAO released its report in January of 2000 stating that mandatory labeling ``would necessitate change in the meat industry's current practices, create compliance costs across all sectors of the industry'' and asserting that ``U.S. packers, processors and grocers would, to the extent possible, pass their compliance costs back to suppliers, U.S. cattle and sheep ranchers, in the form of lower prices or forward to consumers in the form of higher retail prices.''

On September 8, 2000, interested parties submitted a petition to the USDA for a voluntary program and the Subcommittee on Livestock and Horticulture conducted another hearing on September 26, 2000, to review studies and the USDA's progress on the petition.

In early July, 2001, Under Secretary Hawks wrote industry to commit the Agriculture Marketing Service ``to begin action on the petition requesting a USDA voluntary, user-fee funded certification program that will enable a label for beef products.''

That same month, on July 26 and 27, the House Committee on Agriculture conducted its markup of the Farm Bill. The transcript of that markup has 12,463 lines of text, with 3,167 lines on amendments to create a mandatory country of origin labeling program. Fully 25 percent of the markup was devoted to this proposal, which was ultimately rejected because of concerns that the costs outweighed the benefits.

It has been mentioned by some that this has been passed on the floor of the House, and that is most certainly not correct. Mr. Chairman, an amendment was passed on the floor dealing with fruits and vegetables. The more complicated issue of beef and pork, which is the only subject covered by the provision in the Agriculture appropriations bill that delays implementation for a year, is the beef and pork provisions. The House has never taken a position on this, and this is far more complicated and costly for the producers than any of the other sectors, whether one likes the other ideas or not.

For those that attended the Farm Bill conference meetings, they know that labeling was a major topic of discussion there as well.

Despite a complete lack of any hearing record on the subject, the Senate insisted on its provision requiring labeling for beef, pork, lamb, fruits, vegetables, peanuts and fish.

Just weeks ago, on June 26, the Committee on Agriculture conducted an extensive hearing on the implementation of mandatory country of origin labeling. We learned a number of troubling things. We learned that most of the problems associated with implementation were a result of the law and not the administration's interpretation. We learned that while some groups still support mandatory country of origin labeling, the two largest livestock producer groups in America, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and the National Pork Producers Council, both oppose it.

We learned that this new law will open everyone up and down the food production system to third party lawsuits with the potential of creating havoc for producers, packers, processors and retailers. We learned that because of the way the law is drafted, no matter what the administration does in writing the implementing regulations, because the retailers have been made ultimately liable for this labeling system, that they will set up their own regime to protect themselves against mislabeled products, and that regime is going to be very costly to producers.

If you are a domestic producer of beef or pork, you are going to have to comply with an enormous amount of record keeping, a great deal of cost which you are going to have to bear yourself. Lower prices for your product are going to be passed down to you by the processors, by the distributors, by the wholesalers, by the retailers; and that foreign competition, whether it is fine Argentinian Black Angus beef or Australian beef, they are simply going to slap it on the label and say we are guilty. It will cost them little, if anything, to comply; it will cost the U.S. producers more. Therefore, this is going to be a major competitive disadvantage for American agriculture. I would urge Members to support the

original Bonilla language in the appropriations bill to delay implementation for 1 year and oppose the amendment which has just been offered to strike that language. We need time to sort out the problems with this legislation before Congress ends up doing a lot more harm than good.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee for yielding me this time in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado.

I would say to the gentleman that I have supported his amendments from time to time, but I do not believe he has looked at the facts here. We are $872 million less than last year right now. That is far greater than the 1 percent cut the gentleman is asking for. So we have already done the work that he has asked for in this case.

Secondly, because of the fact we are already taking that huge a cut, I can only say that the gentleman's amendment constitutes an assault on rural America. This is something that we simply cannot tolerate.

The gentleman cited the few areas where there have been some significant increases, one of those being telemedicine. As the gentleman knows, the telemedicine program is designed to link rural America, people in clinics and small hospitals and other rural outposts, where they can get some health care treatment, with the major university hospitals that get all the health care money in the first place.

So if you cut out the money that allows them to tap into really good health care provisions by being able to access them, and we held a hearing on this subject in the committee just a couple of weeks ago on the demonstration of the technology that can now reach rural America, if we are able to get these thousands of sites in small communities across America, which does cost a lot of money, and that is why I am pleased the chairman of the subcommittee has put an increase in there for this, if you cut that out, you are doing a lot more than just cutting out that money. You are cutting out the ability of folks in the smallest communities in the country from being able to finally get access to the kind of quality health care that people in large urban areas have, because they will be getting it from the same doctors with the same expertise drawing those same big salaries at those universities hospitals, and now they will be able to reach the smaller communities.

So I would encourage the gentleman to look elsewhere for the kind of savings that he is talking about here. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from New Jersey, because I appreciated his comments about biotechnology and we certainly do want the public to be educated about this, if he would not take up the offer of the gentleman from Texas, the chairman of the subcommittee, to work with him. Withdraw the amendment, work with him, and see if there is not something that can be done as we move to conference, because not knowing exactly how this money would be spent is sort of like writing a blank check.

I think if we had a little more cooperation and a little more communication about what we intended, then the Congress could actually be the ones to specify that, and there might be some merit in the gentleman's position.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, let me say I was not the chairman at the time the farm bill was written, so I do not know the history of the intent in the language in the farm bill. But, again, this is something that has just been brought to my attention, and we would be happy to look into it and see what we can find in that regard and try to achieve some specificity in terms of how the dollars are going to be spent, if indeed we can do that. That, of course, is up to the chairman of the subcommittee, but I would certainly stand willing to work with the gentleman to try to find the right formula and the right dollars that he has to squeeze out of an already-tight process to do something in this area, because I think what the gentleman from New Jersey is proposing is worthwhile.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I will not use the 5 minutes. I just want to say to the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture that this amendment is pursuant to discussions that we had and we very much appreciate his offering it. We think that this will be very helpful in making sure that conservation dollars actually reach the people who need it: America's farmers and ranchers. This will also help to resolve some of the issues regarding the allocation of those funds.

So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a very bad idea from a public health safety standpoint. The way that we inspect animals to prevent animals with anything from BSE to a whole host of other diseases from getting into the food chain is through the process whereby the animals are slaughtered. When they show up at the slaughterhouses, that is where the veterinarians are on hand to inspect them and to make sure that animals that are not healthy do not get into the food chain. They are pulled off the line at that point in time and the public has that safety assurance.

If we require that downed animals are euthanized on the farm and never get to that point in the processing system, we are going to drive this whole process literally underground.

The problem that we have is that the animals will then be buried on the farm or disposed of in some other way, perhaps even put into the food chain illegitimately, because that farmer has absolutely no incentive to do anything otherwise. It is a cost to them, and there is no compensation to them whatsoever.

So if you have an animal that has BSE, and we certainly hope that that never occurs in this country, but if it does, we will never know it if this amendment passes because that animal will never get to the veterinarian to be inspected to determine whether or not it has that illness.

Therefore, this is a very, very bad idea. The humane thing to do for the animal, to have it euthanized at a place in the process where the veterinarians are on hand and can properly inspect it, is the way to go here. It is very important that when animals are downed we find out why they are downed. It might simply be a dislocated hip or something else that is no danger to human consumption, but if it is an animal that has a serious disease, we want to know if that animal has spread that disease to other animals in the area, whether other animals on that farm have the same problem.

If they never get to the veterinarian, we will never find that out; and, therefore, this will become a very serious human health problem if we adopt this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Reclaiming my time, the gentleman's point does not cure the problem. And the reason it does not is that there is still a lack of incentive for that farmer to ship that animal to the veterinarian if he knows before it ever gets on his truck that he will not be able to get any compensation for it, any certification for it no matter what is wrong with the animal.

As I indicated, if the animal simply has a dislocated hip or some other ailment that does not make the animal unsound for human consumption, then the farmer has absolutely no incentive whatsoever to ever get it to the slaughter house.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) because she is responding to exactly the same amendment that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) has informed us he has modified from provisions that he has offered earlier as well.

The gentlewoman wants to keep the animals from ever being shipped to the slaughter house. The slaughter house is where the inspection takes place to determine whether or not the animal has BSE. So if the gentlewoman accomplishes her goal, she is defeating that purpose.

The gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) has said he has modified his amendment so that only funds cannot be expended for the purpose of certifying the animal for processing. That has still the same problem. The farmer will have no incentive to get that animal to the place where the veterinarians are so that inspection can take place. If we had billions of dollars to have veterinarians go to every farm, maybe they could accomplish their goal; but we do not have that kind of money. The farmers do not have the money. They are not going to spend it. So they would be risking public health by refusing to have the process work the way it was designed. Have the animals go to the slaughter house, be inspected.