Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2744) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.

Madam Chairman, first of all, let me express my appreciation to the leader on our side on this subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). This is her first year as the minority rank on this subcommittee, and she is doing an outstandingly good job, and we all very much appreciate the work that she is doing.

I also want to express my appreciation to my chairman. He also is doing a very good job, particularly under a very difficult set of circumstances; and those difficult set of circumstances are, particularly, the allocation that this subcommittee has been afforded. But that, of course, is universally true. All of these subcommittees have been afforded very small, ineffective allocations, ineffective to do all the things that need to be done. But, nevertheless, in spite of that, I think the chairman has done a good job.

There is one aspect of this bill, however, to which I would like to draw attention, because it is an aspect of the bill that is entirely deficient and not only deficient but, because of these deficiencies, the result is a potential for serious harm to a large number of American citizens. That is the way in which the Food and Drug Administration is treated in this legislation, and the fact that the Congress has not provided to the FDA the kinds of authority that it needs in order to protect the general public against the marketing of prescription drugs in ways that are causing serious harm to large numbers of the American people.

Now, recently we have had two experiences, that is, the Nation has had two experiences, with drugs that have been very difficult and dangerous. The first is antidepressants and the way that they have been marketed. They have been marketed largely to people who were targeted for marketing off-label. A lot of the people who they were marketed to and who used them were young folks, young people, teenagers. The effect of these antidepressants on young folks, youngsters, teenagers, people in their early 20s particularly, has been to engender in them a deep sense of depression which, in many cases, has led to suicide; and it has taken us a long time to get attention focused on that problem.

Another example is the so-called Cox-2 inhibitors, or prescriptions such as Vioxx. Vioxx has presented a major, major problem to consumers across the country. It is likely that several hundred thousand people, as a result of the use of Vioxx, have fallen into conditions where their health has been seriously injured; and it may be, and probably is, that more than 100,000 people suffered death as a result of the use of this prescription drug Vioxx.

Now, that comes about as a result of the failure of this Congress to give the FDA the kind of authority it needs to deal with the drug companies; and I later in the debate on this legislation will offer two amendments to deal with this problem.

But, right now, I want to draw the attention of the Members of this House to this issue. This is a serious issue which affects the health and safety of the American people in material and very dramatic ways. It is an issue that is causing the unnecessary death of large numbers of Americans, and it is an issue that we have not dealt with and should deal with, and if we do address it properly, it will alleviate this condition and stop placing so many of American citizens in the kind of dangerous, desperate circumstances that they have fallen into which have caused serious injury to their health and death in large numbers of people.

So what we need to do is to give the Food and Drug Administration the authority to deal with the pharmaceutical companies in the way that any regulatory agency would deal with the entity that it is regulating.

For example, in the case of Vioxx, once that drug got on the market and it became clear that people were being injured as a result of exposure to it, and the off-label marketing of that drug particularly, once that became clear, the Food and Drug Administration was not in a position to tell the drug company that they had to engage in an educational program which would ensure that people to whom the drug would be dangerous would not be using it. They could not order the pharmaceutical company to do anything with regard to the labeling on that drug. They had to negotiate with the company.

So these are some of the major issues that we are facing, one of the major deficiencies in this legislation that needs to be addressed, and I will be offering two amendments later on in the debate, and I hope that the Members of this Congress will embrace those amendments.

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

Mr. Chairman, last night I went before the Committee on Rules to seek the ability to offer an amendment to the bill today that would have given the Food and Drug Administration, the FDA, two critically important new authorities to improve the agency's drug safety operations. It would have given FDA the authority to require drug companies to conduct post-marketing studies of FDA-approved drugs and the authority to mandate changes to the labels of FDA-approved drugs. But the Committee on Rules would not allow the amendment.

Almost every week we hear about another unsafe drug and the significant harm that those drugs are doing to millions of people. Yet Congress has done nothing. The most recent case is the cholesterol- lowering drug Crestor, which a recent study found is significantly more likely than other drugs in its class to cause muscle deterioration that can lead to kidney disease and kidney failure.

Flip through the headlines of the last few months, and we will see many more examples. Of the two most significant drug failures of the last year, they are antidepressants and Vioxx. For years, evidence was building that antidepressants seem to cause an increased rate of suicide among users,

particularly young people. The FDA, however, failed to heed this evidence and delayed taking any action for years because the agency said it did not have enough data to do anything about these reports of suicide.

The reason for this was FDA could not order the drug companies to conduct further clinical trials after a drug is approved. When the agency finally did have enough data back in 2003, it first sought to hide it but eventually told antidepressant makers that there needed to be a warning on suicide. However, it took more than 9 months before that warning was placed on any drug label because the FDA had to negotiate with the drug companies over the label's wording. Patients went 9 extra months without knowing all the risks.

Vioxx was finally removed from the market last September because it increased the risk of heart attacks and strokes. Notably, it was the drug manufacturer, Merck, that removed the drug, not the FDA. An estimated 90,000 to 140,000 Americans suffered heart attacks and strokes as a result of Vioxx. Of these, 30 to 40 percent, or as many as 60,000 people, probably died.

Dr. David Graham, a heroic doctor at the FDA, put these numbers into perspective when he testified before the Senate Finance Committee last November. He compared the number of heart attacks and strokes caused by Vioxx to plane crashes. Dr. Graham stated the Vioxx numbers are the equivalent of two to four airplane crashes every week, week in and week out, week after week, for the past 5 years. If it really were planes that were crashing, then the Congress would be doing something about it. Yet we have done nothing to empower the FDA to prevent another Vioxx.

FDA knew about the dangers of Vioxx more than 5 years ago, and in 2002 the agency decided Vioxx's label needed to have a warning about the increased risk of heart disease. Yet it took nearly 14 months before that warning was added to Vioxx's label because the FDA again had to negotiate the wording with the drug company. FDA could not simply tell Merck that its label must say Vioxx causes increased risk of heart attacks and strokes. Nor could FDA order Merck to conduct a new clinical trial about Vioxx's safety when the FDA learned of other studies indicating safety problems.

My amendment would change that. These commonsense changes are nearly universally accepted by patient safety organizations, endorsed by nearly every major medical journal, and even by a few drug companies. FDA's own director of the Office of New Drugs has said she believes it would be extremely helpful for the agency to have these powers and authorities. They are also endorsed on a bipartisan basis, including by Senators Charles Grassley and Thad Cochran, who have cosponsored a bill that would do almost exactly what I am proposing today.

These changes cannot wait to happen. They cannot wait any longer. Delay is going to cost lives, many lives, tens of thousands of lives in all probability. The amendment should have been made in order by the Committee on Rules, and I am asking the House now today to make this amendment in order. This amendment needs to be considered by the full House of Representatives, and it needs to be considered for no other reason than because by not considering it, we are placing hundreds of thousands of people across this country in dire jeopardy.

We need a Food and Drug Administration that can deal with the drug companies and with the medical manufacturing establishments that it allegedly regulates, deal with them in an effective way, so that we can have true regulation on behalf of the safety and security of the American people, which we do not have today and which this Congress has refused to bring about.

So I am taking this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to bring this amendment to the floor of the House. I want this amendment considered, and I hope that every Member of the House will see it his or her duty to adopt this amendment today.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I know that this issue is controversial. I know that there are Members of the House who really do not want to address it this afternoon. But we should put that aside. We should put it aside because the safety and security of the American people are at stake here.

The Food and Drug Administration was established by this Congress in order to ensure that pharmaceuticals and subsequently various forms of medical devices and other materials which are used by people who are ill, that those devices and materials can be used by people in a way that is safe and secure and sound. But the fact of the matter is that that is not happening, and we have the ocular proof in front of us every single day.

I mentioned a few moments ago the situation of antidepressants. These antidepressants came on the market without proper, careful review; and in addition to that, they began to be marketed for off-label uses. As a result, large numbers of teenagers, young people, people in their twenties, began to use them when they should not have been using them, and the usage of those antidepressants induced suicidal potential in those people, and many of them carried it out. Many, many people took their lives in direct relationship to the use of those antidepressant drugs.

When that became apparent, the Food and Drug Administration was not able to deal effectively with the drug manufacturers because they did not have the authority. They do not have the authority to tell the drug manufacturers that when a problem becomes evident after the drug is on the market that the drug company should, at the very least, change the label, put information on the label that tells people this kind of experience has been shown to happen by this group of people so that people can be warned about it and therefore not be likely to take it and so that doctors can understand that and not be likely to prescribe it.

That simple act would save the lives of tens of thousands of people. Failing to do it almost inevitably is going to cost the lives of tens of thousands of Americans, because it will not be much longer before we see another antidepressant situation or Cox-2 inhibitor situation, Vioxx situation, come on the market if we do not change the rules, if we do not give the FDA the power to deal effectively with these drug manufacturers.

The Vioxx case is a very clear, strong case in point. After a certain period of time when that drug was on the market, it became obvious that people who were taking it were suffering strokes and/or heart attacks. The FDA, when it became aware of that, was not able to do anything effectively about it. They did not even ask the drug company to take the drug off the market.

Finally, Merck came to the table and properly removed Vioxx from the market, but only after hundreds of thousands of people in this country were seriously affected, and we estimate at least 60,000 people lost their lives, and the number may be higher than that; and all of that began to get the attention of the press and people across the country began to understand it.

Now, for God's sake, what are we doing here? Are we just going to stand by idly while these circumstances continue to happen, while more and more drugs come on the market, week after week, month after month, while more and more people take them without understanding the implications and more and more people suffer, even die, as a result of that?

This Congress has the responsibility to act. We need to make that Food and Drug Administration live up to its responsibilities. And by simply saying in a technical way that, no, we cannot do it today, that does not meet the need, not by any stretch of the imagination.

This amendment needs to come to the floor, and this amendment needs to get the kind of attention that it properly deserves on behalf of the safety and security and the lives of the American people and to be adopted.

So I move the amendment, and I ask my colleagues to embrace it today. Vote for it; support it. Let us pass it this afternoon.

Point of Order

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit the Food and Drug Administration from appointing scientists who have conflicts of interest to FDA advisory committees. The amendment does not change current law; it simply makes sure that the FDA is adhering to current law.

The FDA is charged with protecting the public health and, to assist with this mission, the FDA relies heavily on advisory committees composed of outside scientists to guide the agency policy on the safety and effectiveness of drugs and medical devices when questions arise regarding those products. While the FDA is not bound by the decisions of these panels, the agency itself calls advisory committees one of its most important resources for helping to regulate the over 150,000 marketed medical products that the FDA oversees.

Because of the critically important nature of these committees, there should be no question as to whether the committee members are looking out for the public health. But recent FDA actions have created serious doubts about whether committee members are serving only the public interests and, as a result, industry biases now taint many advisory panel decisions.

Over the past few years, the FDA has routinely waived conflict of interest prohibitions and appointed scientists with direct conflicts of interest to serve on these critical public panels. These appointments completely undermine the objectivity of this outside advice and bias the committee's recommendations, which are reached by a vote of the panel members, some of whom have financial ties to the products being reviewed by that very same panel.

There have been numerous high-profile examples of this over the past 18 months. Just this past April, for example, the FDA convened an advisory committee to examine whether or not to allow silicon breast implants back on the market. That committee contained a scientist who had just recently made a promotional video for a manufacturer of those implants.

Two months prior to that, the FDA convened an advisory panel to review the safety of Cox-2 inhibitors, drugs like Vioxx, which have caused tens of thousands of heart attacks and strokes. Ten of the 32 scientists on that panel had direct financial links to the manufacturers of those drugs. When it came time for the committee to make its recommendations, those ties made all the difference. Without the votes of the ten conflicted scientists, two of those three drugs and the Cox-2 inhibitor class would have been voted down by the panel, instead of receiving the very narrow support and approval they did as a result of those conflicted scientists' votes.

Last year, when there was a huge controversy around the link between antidepressants and suicide, especially among young people, the FDA convened an advisory panel to make recommendations on how the agency should handle those drugs. Three of the 11 scientists on that committee had been paid consultants to the manufacturers of those antidepressants.

These examples are just the tip of the iceberg. Advisory panels on OxyContin, oncology drugs, even over-the-counter athletes' foot creams, all had scientists with conflicts of interest. Almost every advisory committee meeting begins with an FDA statement waiving the conflicts of interest of some of the scientists on that panel.

If you think that scientists who rely on drug companies for their financial wherewithal are going to recommend that the FDA take action that will harm the company that is paying them, then you are living in a fantasy world.

The FDA claims that it cannot find enough qualified scientists without conflicts of interest to fill its advisory committees. This statement is laughable on its surface and an insult to the thousands of independent doctors across this country. It is also not accurate. As the medical journal, The Lancet, recently editorialized, ``It is hard to believe that in a country with 125 medical schools, not to mention the pool of international experts, the FDA cannot find experts who do not have financial ties with companies whose products are under review.'' Of course, the FDA can find scientists without conflicts of interest. They just do not want to do it, and they are not doing it.

Advisory committees are critical parts of the FDA's regulatory scheme, and they should be free of any direct conflict of interest. Without this, there is no way to assure the public that a panel's recommendations are fair and unbiased and in the interest of the public health.

After one of the most tumultuous years in the FDA's history, this amendment is needed to restore the public's confidence and integrity that has been lost in the FDA's advisory system. A wide range of public health groups support this amendment, and numerous recent editorials have called for this kind of reform. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Chairman, can I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Mr. Chairman, is there anyone on the other side who wishes to speak on the amendment?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

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

Mr. Chairman, I frankly find the arguments that have been presented against this amendment, in a word, incredible. They seem to me to be coming from the entities in our country, in our economy, that need regulation. It seems as if the words were written by them.

We have 125 medical schools in this country. We have a bevy of expert scientists who are capable of dealing with these kinds of issues. For anyone to stand on the floor of this House and say that you cannot construct a panel, an advisory panel to advise the Food and Drug Administration with regard to the safety and security of a particular drug without putting on that panel one-third of the members who are conflicted in their interests, who are being paid by the economic entities that are about to be regulated, or should be regulated, or who have done commercial advertisements for some of those entities, that you cannot construct a panel without having a third of the members with that kind of conflict of interest, is the most absurd statement I think I have ever heard uttered on the floor of this House.

We have scientific bodies throughout our government and throughout the private sector, throughout the National Institutes of Health, throughout any number of scientific organizations, who put together panels; and they are never obliged to include within those panels people who are conflicted in their interests with regard to the decisions that are going to be made by those panels. It is ridiculous, absurd to stipulate that you cannot construct a panel without having people with a conflict of interest.

I am just asking the Members of this body to tell the Food and Drug Administration that when you draw together a panel, do the same thing that other regulatory bodies do. Make sure that among the members of those panels, there is no one who is conflicted in their interests.

No one who is being monetarily compensated by the entity that is being regulated; in the case of the drug companies no one who is getting money from the drug companies, no one who is on the payroll of drug companies. That is all you have to do. It is a very simple thing. There are thousands of people to reach out to who are capable and qualified to come onto those panels and make those kinds of decisions.

To say that you cannot put together a panel without including in it one-third of the members who are conflicted in their interests is absolutely ridiculous.

And so, Mr. Chairman, I ask the Members of this body to do something that is in the best interests of the people of our Nation. Let us have a Food and Drug Administration that is actually carrying out its regulatory authorities as this Congress set them up to do.

Let us have an FDA that actually regulates the entities.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, passage of this rule will allow the House to consider the Agricultural, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2006.

I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) and the subcommittee's new ranking member, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), for working so well together on this bill which clearly deserves the support of all the membership of this House.

This important bill provides the funding for our domestic nutrition and anti-hunger programs, international food aid, the Food and Drug Administration, and food inspection. Although traditionally the bill is not controversial, it is an important appropriations bill because of the vitally important programs that are supported here.

I want to express my strong support for the Department of Agriculture programs that fight to end hunger here at home and around the world. Mr. Speaker, hunger is a political problem, one that can be solved if only we have the political will to do so. Regrettably, the Bush administration and the leadership in this House and the Senate have not made the necessary commitments to reduce poverty and end hunger in our country. Indeed, hunger and poverty are once again on the rise in the United States. More children are going to bed hungry at night right here in the United States of America, the richest and most blessed country in the world. Every year six million children in our world die of hunger-related causes. We cannot and should not stand by and watch these tragedies unfold.

Mr. Speaker, it is time we raise the bar and pledge to end hunger once and for all. It is time to really tackle the issue of poverty. In the meantime, until we make that commitment and back it up with real action and greater resources, we must at least maintain funding for the domestic and international nutrition and anti-hunger programs in this bill. That is why it is so important that this bill increases funding for mandatory programs like food stamps and other child nutrition programs like the school lunch program.

I am also pleased that discretionary programs like WIC also receive increases. These programs are among the most successful of our Federal anti-hunger programs, and they help millions of Americans get the food they could not otherwise afford to buy.

Unfortunately, important programs like the summer food service program are not fully funded. This important program provides meals to low-income children during the summer when they can not receive a school lunch because the schools are closed for summer vacation. There is no reason why a child who receives a lunch at school during the school year should be denied a lunch during the summer merely because school is out of session.

Another important program that needs to be expanded is the school breakfast program. Too many of our children begin their school days hungry. They cannot concentrate as well as children who have something to eat before class. Those children who are fortunate enough to receive a school breakfast usually have to get to school earlier than the other kids. There is a stigma that gets attached to these children because it is plain for all the students to see who cannot afford to eat breakfast at home.

We need to expand the school breakfast program so that it is a truly universal program, and we must provide school breakfast at the start of the school day and not before. These two simple actions will ensure that a nutritious meal is provided to hungry children without attaching any social stigma. The consequences of such basic changes will be measurable increases in learning and test scores, as well as improvements in health.

A third program that needs to be fully funded is the effort to end the reduced price meal. Currently, low-income children are eligible for either a free school lunch or a reduced price lunch. The reduced price lunch costs 40 cents per meal. While that may not seem like a lot to you or me, it can put a real strain on the finances of many low-income families who are struggling to make ends meet. Too often, school lunch administrators report seeing children who are able to buy lunch at the beginning of the month stop eating as the month goes on, merely because their families cannot afford to pay for that reduced price lunch as money gets tighter and tighter towards the end of the paycheck.

The Child Nutrition Reauthorization Bill, a truly bipartisan bill that was signed into law last year, phases out the reduced price meal. Last year, thousands of anti-hunger activists roamed the halls of Capitol Hill with their blue and white ERP buttons on, and Congress responded. Now it is time to back up that promise and fully fund the effort to end the reduced price meal.

Mr. Speaker, the fiscal year 2006 bill also provides funding for the International Food Aid Programs administered by the USDA. These programs provide emergency food aid to regions of the world that need help today. I am pleased that President Bush pledged to release $674 million for humanitarian relief on the Horn of Africa. However, while it is important that the United States provide the funding for humanitarian relief around the world, the Committee on Appropriations must ensure that these funds are replenished for the following year.

Unfortunately, this bill underfunds the Food for Peace Program, which is one of our most important food aid and development programs. I commend the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) for restoring $222 million to this program above the President's request. But the program still remains $60 million below last year's level. While emergency funding was included in the tsunami relief package, we should not rely on emergency funding when we can properly fund this important program in the Agriculture Appropriations bill. Nor should we shortchange funding for the ongoing programs that are funded through the Food for Peace and other international food aid programs.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I also want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), for increasing funding for the George McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program. This program uses American commodities to provide school meals to hungry children around the world. It is named after two men who have led the fight against child hunger while they served in the United States Senate and as private citizens.

Senator George McGovern is a dear friend of mine who has worked tirelessly on ending hunger over his decades of public service, and I cannot say enough about Senator Bob Dole's work on combating hunger here and abroad. He is a man of great integrity and someone who I respect immensely. I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to have the opportunity to work with his wife, Senator Elizabeth Dole, on a number of anti-hunger efforts.

The McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program is based on our own school lunch and breakfast program. It provides a nutritious meal for hungry children in a school setting. It has resulted in not only reducing child hunger abroad but in better schools and stronger community support for education in some of the poorest communities in the world. It is a successful program that is developing the long-term support of the Bush administration, and it deserves to be expanded.

I am pleased that the Bush administration and the leadership in the House and Senate agree on the importance of the McGovern-Dole program. The President's budget has included an increase in funding for this program over each of the last 3 years; and, more importantly, the Congress has agreed in increased funding over the past 3 years.

Mr. Speaker, while I believe the funding must be restored to $300 million, the original level of the Global Food for Education Initiative, the pilot program that preceded the McGovern-Dole program, I am pleased that the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) and the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) have supported the President's request for increased funding of $100 million for fiscal year 2006.

I am also encouraged by the level of commitment to the McGovern-Dole program in the Senate, and I am hopeful that funding for this program will be further increased when the Senate considers this bill later this year.

Mr. Speaker, in December of 2004, 105 of our House colleagues sent a bipartisan letter to President Bush supporting the McGovern-Dole program. That letter is as follows:

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, December 2, 2004.

Hon. George W. Bush,

President of the United States,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. President: We are writing to urge you to provide

$300 million in your Fiscal Year 2006 Budget Proposal for the

George McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for Education

and Child Nutrition Program. We believe it is urgent to

restore funding for this program at levels similar to those

of the original pilot program.

We strongly believe this funding is critical for sustaining

and expanding the McGovern-Dole Program in order to combat

terrorism and to help build and consolidate democracy in the

Middle East, southern Asia, the Near East, and in other

regions critical to U.S. national security. As you are aware,

the McGovern-Dole Program provides donations of U.S.

agricultural products, as well as financial and technical

assistance, for school feeding and maternal and child

nutrition programs in low-income countries. We note that

recommendations made by the General Accounting Office (GAO)

in February 2002 on how to strengthen and improve the

administration and implementation of school feeding programs

were fully integrated into the law establishing the McGovern-

Dole Program, enhancements that we believe have contributed

to its current success.

Both the initial plot program and the current McGovern-Dole

Program have a proven track record at reducing the incidence

of hunger among school-age children and improving literacy

and primary education, especially among girls, in areas

devastated by war, hunger, poverty, HIV/AIDS, and the

mistreatment of women and girls. School meals, teacher

training, and related support have helped boost school

enrollment and academic performance. McGovern-Dole nutrition

and school feeding programs also improve the health and

learning capacity of children both before they enter school

and during the years of primary and elementary school

In February 2003, the U.S. Department of Agriculture

evaluated the McGovern-Dole pilot program and found

significant positive results. Specifically--

``The results to date show measurable improvements in

school enrollment, including increased access by girls. In

projects involving more than 4,000 participating schools, the

WFP reports an overall enrollment increase exceeding 10

percent, with an 11.7 percent increase in enrollment by

girls. The PVO's report an overall enrollment increase of

5.75 percent in GFE-participating schools. In some projects,

increases in enrollment were as high as 32 percent compared

with enrollment rates over the previous three years.''

(USDA, The Global Food for Education Pilot Program: A Review

of Project Implementation and Impact, page 2, February 2003)

We firmly believe that these programs reduce the risk of

terrorism by helping to eliminate the hopelessness and

despair that breed terrorism. American products and

commodities are directly associated with hunger alleviation

and educational opportunity, encouraging support and good

will for the United States in these communities and

countries.

We strongly urge that you restore the capacity of this

critically important program by providing $300 million for

Fiscal Year 2006.

Sincerely,

James P. McGovern, Nancy Pelosi, James A. Leach, Hilda L.

Solis, Todd Tiahrt, Ike Skelton, Jo Ann Emerson, Frank

R. Wolf, Tom Lantos, Donald A. Manzullo, Earl Pomeroy,

Marcy Kaptur, John Shimkus, George Miller, Roger F.

Wicker, Rosa L. DeLauro, Lynn C. Woolsey, Anthony D.

Weiner, Chris Van Hollen.

Neil Abercrombie, Ron Kind, Sam Graves, Jose E. Serrano,

Albert R. Wynn, Robert Wexler, Maxine Waters, John F.

Tierney, Gary L. Ackerman, Robert E. Andrews, Earl

Blumenauer, Leonard L. Boswell, Corrine Brown, Michael

E. Capuano, Elijah E. Cummings, William D. Delahunt,

Bob Etheridge, Tammy Baldwin, Madeleine Z. Bordallo.

Rick Boucher, Sherrod Brown, Joseph Crowley, Susan A.

Davis, Michael F. Doyle, James L. Oberstar, John W.

Olver, David E. Price, Bobby L. Rush, Bernard Sanders,

Janice D. Schakowsky, Vic Snyder, Eni F. H.

Faleomavaega, Barney Frank, Donald M. Payne, Steven R.

Rothman, Martin Olav Sabo, Max Sandlin, Adam Smith,

Fortney Pete Stark.

Bob Filner, Charles A. Gonzalez, Raul M. Grijalva,

Stephanie Herseth, Tim Holden, Eddie Bernice Johnson,

Rick Larsen, Stephen Lynch, Karen McCarthy, Jim

Marshall, Alcee L. Hastings, Maurice D. Hinchey, Sheila

Jackson-Lee, Dale E. Kildee, Barbara Lee, Carolyn

McCarthy, Carolyn B. Maloney, Jim Matheson, Betty

McCollum.

Michael R. McNulty, Gregory W. Meeks, Dennis Moore,

Richard E. Neal, Jim McDermott, Sam Farr, Christopher

H. Smith, Martin T. Meehan, Juanita Millender-McDonald,

James P. Moran, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Thaddeus G.

McCotter, Major Owens, Linda T. Sanchez, Thomas H.

Allen, Doc Hastings, Patrick J. Kennedy, Edward J.

Markey, Brad Miller, and Sander M. Levin.

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

Hon. James P. McGovern,

House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman McGovern: Thank you for the letter of

December 2, 2004, from you and your colleagues to President

George W. Bush, expressing your support for the McGovern-Dole

International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program

(FFE). The White House forwarded your letter to the

Department of Agriculture (USDA) for reply. We apologize for

the delay in responding.

This Administration greatly appreciates your support for

this very successful program. USDA now has 5 years of

experience with FFE and its predecessor, the Global Food for

Education Initiative. These programs have reached over 7

million beneficiaries and provided close to 1.3 million tons

of agricultural commodities as well as other types of

assistance to schools and communities. The positive results

include increased school enrollment, especially among

girls; declines in absenteeism; improved concentration,

energy, and attitudes toward learning; and infrastructure

improvements, including classrooms, kitchens, storage

facilities, water systems, latrines, and playgrounds.

We are especially gratified that FFE has resulted in

greater local commitment to school feeding activities. In

many cases, FFE activities have been so successful that local

support for school feeding is expanding to the point that FFE

assistance can shortly be ended. Examples of these

``graduating'' countries are Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Moldova and

Vietnam. We will continue to allocate some FFE resources to

these countries this year as we expand the benefits of FFE by

implementing programs in additional countries. Additionally,

the success of FFE has resulted in other donors becoming

involved in school feeding programs. These other donors

include the European Union, the German Agency for Technical

Cooperation, the Japanese Development Agency, Canada, and the

World Health Organization.

We agree that funding for FFE should be expanded in fiscal

year (FY) 2006. While the Administration is making a

concerted effort to cut the budget deficit, we have requested

$100 million in appropriated funding for FFE in FY 2006,

which is double the funding for the program in FY 2004 and an

increase of 15 percent compared to FY 2005.

Thank you again for writing to support this important

program. We look forward to continuing to work with you to

improve USDA's overseas food aid programs. A similar letter

has been sent to each of your colleagues.

Sincerely,

Mike Johanns,

Secretary.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) has crafted a bill that deserves to be supported today; and while there is room for improvement, I believe that the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and the Subcommittee on Agriculture of the Committee on Appropriations did the best they could with the limited resources they were given. Again, I thank my friend from Florida (Mr. Putnam).

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

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

Before I yield to our next speaker, I would just like to respond to something the gentleman from Florida had said in his comments on hunger.

As I should point out to the gentleman, there are 36 million people in the United States of America who are hungry, and every single one of us in this Chamber should be ashamed of that fact. We can do better.

He mentioned the problem of obesity. I should point out to the gentleman that there is a relationship, believe it or not, between malnutrition and hunger and obesity. A lot of the cases of obesity are directly related to the fact that a lot of families cannot afford to put a decent meal on the table. So these kids end up eating junk food, and it results in the obesity problem.

We have a huge problem here. We should not minimize it, and we have a long way to go.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for this bill which I think is a good bill despite an unsatisfactory allocation. I think this bill deserves support by all our colleagues. However, I would respectfully suggest that this Congress in the future focus more on alleviating hunger and poverty in this country.

Yesterday was National Hunger Awareness Day. There were thousands of people that descended on Capitol Hill from all over the country urging Congress to do more. I hope we will do more. They are right. There is much more for us to do.

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

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

I thank the gentleman for his statement. I am pleased to join him for the first time in my capacity as ranking member of the agriculture appropriations subcommittee. It has been a pleasure working with the gentleman from Texas and his staff to put together the 2006 agriculture appropriations bill and with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) as we worked in full committee to get here today.

I, too, would like to say thank you to the staff of the subcommittee: to Martha Foley; to my own personal staff, to Karen Wilcox, Ashley Turton and Becky Salay; the majority office, Martin Delgado, Maureen Holohan, Leslie Barrack, Tom O'Brien, Jami Burgess. I really again say thank you for your expertise and for your patience. Let me also compliment the chairman on doing the very best with limited resources in this bill. Unfortunately, we know that the budget situation means that the funding allocation for this subcommittee was simply not sufficient to meet all the needs of rural America and our Nation's farmers.

When I chose to sit on this subcommittee 9 years ago, I did so because I believed that the issues overseen by this subcommittee are core responsibilities of the Federal Government. This is the only subcommittee where farm policy, rural development and conservation, nutrition programs, food safety, drug regulations, and public health all come together. Although some might be surprised to learn, I have nearly 400 farms in my district ranging from dairy farms to horticulture and aquaculture, to orchards and vegetable cultivation. In fact, the first experiment station in the United States still does cutting-edge research in New Haven.

Another area that I have spent time on is determining how we can best secure our food supply, something in which every American has a stake. My duties as cochair and founder of the bipartisan Food Safety Caucus have informed my understanding of the importance of the responsibilities of USDA and FDA alike, giving me the opportunity to visit slaughter plants and feed lots as well as fruit and vegetable farms across the country.

I see food safety as a public health issue. I look forward to finding ways that can mutually benefit the health of our people, our farms, and our food supply. In addition, urban areas like New Haven rely on feeding programs for women, infants and children, for schools, for seniors, and for some of the disabled living on the edge of poverty.

Yesterday was National Hunger Awareness Day, and our subcommittee is certainly aware that the President's budget predicted an increase in the use of food stamps in 2006. Unfortunately, this bill does not provide enough funding to maintain current participation in the Commodity Supplemental Food Program. At least 45,000 participants, the overwhelming majority of older Americans, will have to be dropped from this program unless there are more funds provided.

Ensuring that these programs are funded is, in my opinion, among the very serious moral obligations of government. It is my belief that the bill before us today is more than a list of programs and funding levels. It is statement of values, of principles and priorities, a moral document so that when we discuss the bill and how it allocates $16.8 billion for USDA, I believe we must think of it in those terms.

We should remember that the farm programs and the international trade promotion and advocacy that help our farmers across the country and sell our products have profound implications on our Nation's overall economy and our quality of life, that research programs at USDA are critical to our efforts to protect our agricultural plant and animal products, our environment, and our public health.

Unfortunately, in some of these area this bill falls short. I believe that the President's budget failed to meet the needs of rural America, decimating rural development programs. This bill makes headway in reversing cuts made by the President. However, I am concerned that funding for water and waste grants, for example, remains below the level of last year's House bill and well below the 2004 bill.

Rural America faces serious economic development challenges: affordable housing, clean drinking water, sewerage systems, access to remote educational and medical resources. I am afraid that this funding shortfall will lead to long-term deficiencies in rural infrastructure.

Of course, this bill covers the funding of one of the most important agencies in our entire government, the Food and Drug Administration within the Department of Health and Human Services. FDA oversees some of the most critical products that our citizens rely on every single day. The vast majority are processed and fresh foods, except for meat, poultry, and egg products; our prescription and over-the-counter drugs; medical devices; our blood supply.

This agency had many problems over the last year, from the recalls of Bextra and Vioxx to hearings in which its drug safety scientists have been at odds with the senior management of FDA. It is troubling, very troubling, that the FDA's acting commissioner was not permitted to come before our subcommittee to testify this year, and that failure made it difficult for the committee to make informed decisions.

I thank the chairman for accepting the amendment that I offered in subcommittee to withhold 5 percent of the funds from the Food and Drug Administration's central offices until the head of the agency testifies regarding their budget request. This will not affect food or drug safety. It will only affect FDA's administrative offices. But I am sure that it will serve to get the administration's and the leadership of FDA's attention.

On that same topic, I thank the chairman for working with me to include funding to double the annual funding for review and direct-to- consumer ads by FDA, as well as another $5 million for drug safety at the FDA.

In 2001, the drug industry spent $2.7 billion on direct-to-consumer advertising, but the FDA office charged with ensuring that those ads are accurate was funded at less than $1 million, $884,000 to be precise. Doubling that amount is a small start toward remedying the inequitable advantage, and the $5 million will be devoted to the most critical aspects of drug safety.

I find it unfortunate the bill includes a 1-year limitation on implementation of the country of origin labeling for meat and meat products. Country of origin labeling would give people the information they need to make an informed choice to protect the safety of their families. Thirty-five other countries that we trade with, including Canada, Mexico, members of the European Union, already have a country of origin labeling system in place. I believe it is a mistake to not move forward on implementing country of origin labeling.

On International Food Aid, the subcommittee bill restores $222 million of funds under Public Law 480 that the administration sought to move to USAID, and I thank the chairman for preventing that move. However, we remain well below the funding level the past few years for that critical aid program. This law not only benefits those in dire need around the world, many of whom are starving to death, it benefits our farmers and our maritime shippers by utilizing our farm products and sources of transportation, and I hope that we can bring that funding level up before this bill becomes law.

I am pleased that the President's proposals to change formula funding for agriculture research institutions and to alter the funding stream for the Food and Safety Inspection Service through user fees were not included in the bill.

I also appreciate the chairman's working with the Democratic members of the subcommittee to begin to fund last year's Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act to enhance specialty crops such as fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, dried fruits, and nursery crops in this bill and for the Farmers Market Promotion Program, a function that can expand the farmer-consumer relationship in many areas of our country.

The programs funded through this bill directly impact the everyday lives of every American, from public health and FDA to rural development, infrastructure maintenance, environmental

conservation and preservation, to nutrition assistance at home and abroad. Failure to adequately invest in these programs will have serious long-term consequences for our Nation.

Again, I have enjoyed working with the chairman and his staff, and I believe that we can take pride in the progress we have made in significantly improving the bill over the proposals that we did receive from the President.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Let me just say that I want to make it clear that what we tried to do with regard to the Food and Drug Administration was to call attention to the series of crises that, in fact, have been rampant over the last several months, whether it is Vioxx or whether it is Bextra or whether it is the post-marketing studies that were to occur that never did occur or the slighting, I believe, of our committee in not coming forward and having the director come before our committee.

What we tried to do is to create a balance, and that is to provide additional funding for the Office of Drug Safety to look at direct-to- consumer advertising in order to try to protect the public and to provide additional funding to create some more infrastructure.

I, too, believe that we should have made in order the amendments offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey). Really what should be happening is FDA should be coming to the Congress for authority in order to be able to change the labeling that, in fact, ultimately protects the public interest and that we ought to have the opportunity and they ought to come and demand from us authority in order to do post-marketing surveys about the risks of some of the products that are on the market. They should be coming to us.

Instead, we want to provide that authority but are not allowed to be able to do that. I think that it was a mistake for us not to do that, but I think we need to continue this effort about trying to provide the agency which has the regulatory power over the pharmaceutical industry to develop some spine in order to be able to protect the public interest.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Madam Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), a member of the subcommittee.

Madam Chairman, I would like to inquire about how much time is remaining on both sides.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I would ask the chairman if he has any additional speakers.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself the remaining 2\1/2\ minutes to close.

Madam Chairman, as we conclude the general debate, I wanted to reiterate that it has been a pleasure to work with the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) on the bill. Given limited resources, I think we have tried to do a good job to meet the needs of rural America, our Nation's farmers, and other accounts funded in the bill.

As we begin to move through the amendment process, I look forward to trying to address several areas in the bill that I believe could use some improvement.

I mentioned earlier the Commodity Supplemental Food Program. A majority of older Americans, nearly 45,000 participants, will have to be dropped from this vital program unless more funds are provided.

Also of concern to me is the 1-year limitation on implementation of country of origin labeling for meat and meat products. Consumers in this country need the information to make informed decisions for their safety and the safety of their families, and I hope that the House will reconsider the country of origin labeling provision in this bill.

Overall, I think that the committee can feel good about the work that it has done on this legislation thus far. I am hoping that we can look at an amendment process where we can improve the bill even more in just a few critical areas.

I would hope that with regard to the Food and Drug Administration that, in fact, we will be able to provide them with the authorities that I think the Nation would believe that they desperately need, and that is to be able to do post-marketing studies on drug products on the market and also to change labels that would need changing in order to protect the citizenry of this country.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Unfortunately, plant diseases are continuously emerging; and they can threaten not only our agriculture but our environment and our public health. I think that in Connecticut, for instance, I will talk about sudden oak death, which has been identified recently. We are looking at potentially massive deforestation, and we are working hard at the New Haven Experiment Station to cooperate on research on the plant disease before our forests of Connecticut are heavily impacted.

We all know the results of massive deforestation: Bad for our land conservation, bad for our environment, and it contributes to the lowering of, the actual lowering of our air quality.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for accepting the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).

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

I hear a lot of talk about voluntary, but we have no mandatory right to recall tainted products. We have voluntary labeling of drugs, which can hurt people. We have voluntary marketing studies after a drug has been brought to market. When are we going to do something that makes sure that we are protecting people's interests?

Country-of-origin labeling is about providing people the information they need to make an informed choice to protect the safety of their families. Thirty-five other countries that we trade with, including Canada, Mexico, members of the European Union, have country-of-origin labeling. Seven out of ten people say they are willing to pay more to know where their food is coming from.

Food imports are increasing. The number of inspections of imported meat is actually decreasing. Consumers have a right to know, given the fact that we continue to have major recalls of meat products. This year we have had over 30 recalls.

This effort is about being able to trace back contaminated product in the event of a recall. Knowing the source of an outbreak is a critical part of the process so that we can quickly take action to prevent people from getting sick. It is critically important considering the 76 million sicknesses, 5,000 deaths that occur every year from food-borne illness.

Some say that if we halt the implementation of the country-of-origin labeling for meat, it will allow more time to consider the impact on the food industry. Congress has given the USDA more than 2 years to design a program that is fair to all parties including industry and consumers. Country-of-origin labeling will not violate trade agreements, lead to retaliation. It will not bankrupt the food industry. It simply says to consumers they will know where their food comes from. We owe the American people that.

I urge my colleagues to support the Rehberg-Hooley amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak on the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I want to echo my colleagues' comments, because I think that we have an obligation. In my opening comments, I said that I believed that this bill is about what the House of Representatives and Members who are part of this effort have been asked to do, and we have been asked to protect the public interest on a whole variety of measures, and, in this case, we are talking about life and death.

Mr. Chairman, it would seem to me that the regular order of the House would be to allow legislation that in fact meets the definition or the goal of the mission that we have been entrusted with. I wish that the Committee on Rules would have made this amendment in order because it is so critical to public safety.

I concur with my colleague when he says if it is not made in order, then we have to concede the point of order. But what we are conceding is the life and death of American people, and that is not the regular order.

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

I rise to speak on the Hinchey amendment to require that the FDA stop waiving conflict of interest revelations by their advisors and to start to make an affirmative search for scientists who can give unconflicted advice to this critically important agency.

Unfortunately, there is abundant evidence that scientists are being invited onto and accepted onto these committees, even when they tell the FDA that they have a conflict. They are permitted to serve, regardless of conflict. This must stop.

Other agencies, such as the NIH, have regularly found unconflicted, fully qualified professional advisors so that the agency can receive the best, unbiased advice possible.

I am mindful that there may be scientists whose expertise deserves to be presented to an advisory committee, and nothing in this amendment, as I understand it, precludes these individuals from being asked to testify before a committee.

When enacted, this amendment will also start to contribute to and rebuild the credibility of the actions of FDA. We cannot have even the aura of influence by the pharmaceutical industry or other regulated industries when it comes to the FDA.

Surely, in a country that is renowned for its scientific and medical expertise, I think we have 125 medical schools in the United States, that it is possible to find scientists without conflicts of interest to advise the FDA and to protect the public health.

I urge support for the Hinchey amendment.

Mr. Chairman, let me just ask a point of inquiry here. As I understand it, this amendment is for a year's duration?

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring before the House today the fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill for agriculture, rural development, the FDA and related agencies. As many people know, this bill does not just fund agriculture issues that are so important for the Nation and the world but also funds the Food and Drug Administration, the Women, Infants and Children program, and the food stamp program. There are a wide variety of issues that are very significant to this Nation and the world.

This is a bipartisan bill, Mr. Chairman. I am very proud this year to have worked for the first time with the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), who was a great partner in putting this bill together, as are all the members of the subcommittee. This is a great subcommittee that comes to the table every day with sometimes differences of opinion, but at the end of the day want to get a bill done. As chairman of this subcommittee, it has been a very fulfilling experience to have gone through this process with this great group.

We have difficult challenges every year when we put this subcommittee mark together and when we put the bill together. We had over 2,100 individual requests from Members; so with the good staff that we have that I will get into a little more later, we have had to go through with a fine-tooth comb every request to make sure that it does not overlap with another request and then to prioritize all of these very important issues that come from Members all over the country.

I would also like to thank the staff for working on this. I want to take a moment to mention some very important names who have worked on this bill, sometimes day and night and on weekends as well: Martha Foley of the minority staff; and Maureen Holohan, Leslie Barrack, and Jamie Swafford of the majority staff. In addition, I want to thank our detailee Tom O'Brien and Walt Smith from my personal staff; and, of course, my distinguished clerk, Martin Delgado, who does a fabulous job on this bill. I also want to take a brief moment to recognize Joanne Perdue who worked on the committee for several years and retired from the committee just this past month.

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to point out just in very broad terms that this bill takes care of a lot of issues that are critical not just to agriculture producers but to consumers in terms of food safety, research projects that are going on in every State in this Nation. A lot of people go to the grocery store, Mr. Chairman, and they see that big truck pulling up in the back of the store and unloading goods that are put on shelves and in the freezers at the local grocery store and their products that are sold at a high quality for a good price. Quite frankly, most Americans do not know all of the policy and all of the research and all of the hard work that goes into putting that product on the shelf so that Americans can go into the store, use those coupons and enjoy themselves and the quality of life that it brings to Americans all across the country. Again, there is a lot of detail that goes into putting this bill together.

I am also very proud to work hand in hand with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), our authorizing chairman, who has been a partner in this process not just this year but every year. So all of these policies and all of these programs that I am talking about here have been a team effort.

Mr. Chairman, I include at this point in the Record the following tabular material related to the bill:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN05.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN05.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN05.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN05.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN05.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN05.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN05.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN05.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN05.009

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Yes, Mr. Chairman. It is my understanding that there are benefits to the Organic Transition Program being managed as part of the Integrated Organic Program, and my intention is that it should continue to be managed as it was in fiscal years 2004 and 2005.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), a member of the subcommittee.

Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski).

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Chairman, the gentleman has worked very hard on this project; and at this time, as chairman, I would like to commit to trying to resolve this problem to his satisfaction between now and the conference.

Madam Chairman, we have no additional speakers at this time.

Madam Chairman, in the interest of moving forward and moving to the amendment process, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, I would like to briefly explain the amendment and the purpose of the amendment.

First of all, the amendment cuts $40 million from the Common Computing Environment account and increases the value-added market development grants by $40 million. The amendment also reduces the Conservation Operations account by $20 million, and it increases the Watershed Rehabilitation account by the same amount.

I understand that Members may have some concern with these transactions that we are involved with here, but the reason that we are doing this today is to accommodate some legitimate concerns raised by the authorizing committee about some of the mandatory limitations in this bill. I have worked closely with the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Goodlatte) over the years, and I intend to work with him closely in the future, especially as he prepares to write a new farm bill. While I would have preferred to keep the CCE account funded at the highest level possible, I am confident that when we get to the conference with the Senate that we will be able to restore funding to this account.

So let us keep this funding moving forward, and I ask for Members' support on this amendment. It is my understanding that the minority has agreed to this amendment, so we hope to expedite debate.

Madam Chairman, we are willing to accept this amendment and move forward.

Madam Chairman, the gentleman has worked very hard on this important issue, which is very important to students around the country; and we would be happy to accept the amendment and move forward and move it to a vote if the gentleman would like.

Madam Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.

Although I certainly understand and share the concerns that many Members have about plant, pests and diseases that devastate crops and trees, I must say that we have done our absolute best to fund eradication and control of plant pests in the bill that you see before you today.

Funding includes, among other things, for the Asian long-horn beetle, it is at $15.3 million. Also, across the country, the glassy-winged sharpshooter, 24 million; the emerald ash borer, 14 million; Citrus canker, $36 million, very important to our Members in Florida. And the list goes on.

Emerging plant pests alone are funded at over $100 million in this bill. In addition, tens of millions of dollars go to fund programs to stop Medfly, the boll weevil, brucellosis, the gypsy moth, and many others. Every Member has some interest represented. And we

have carefully balanced things out so that agriculture is best protected, and that is what we all want.

Those are the appropriated amounts, and when there is an emergency situation, the Secretary has authority to use funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation for eradication and control. For sudden oak death, an additional $9 million was approved this year, and requests are pending for 11 million for the emerald ash borer and $5 million for the glassy-winged sharpshooter.

We are watching the use of emergency funds closely. There is no way that appropriated dollars substitute for the emergency funding that these agriculture emergencies demand. I am also very concerned about the amendment due to the offset proposed to cut the common computing environment. I do oppose this amendment once again and urge a ``no'' vote.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition the gentleman's amendment.

This is a very important issue, and we tried our best to fund it at the appropriate level. I have had discussions with the gentleman about trying to work with him as we move to conference to attempt to increase this line item somewhat, to address the problem that the gentleman is addressing in a very sincere way here today.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that title VII be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment as part of the agreement that I referred to earlier with the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.

I am offering the amendment under the agreement that we would add $40 million back to the Environmental Quality Incentives program account. That is what the amendment does, and it is paid for by increasing the limitations on the Conservation Security program, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives program, and the Farm and Ranchlands Protection program.

Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor) has worked very hard on for some time and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) is offering on his behalf, and we are happy to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, is it the gentleman's intention to withdraw his amendment?

I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.

Mr. Chairman, absolutely. Let me point out that the gentleman from Kansas is not only working hard on this particular issue, but he is a key player on agricultural issues that we deal with on a daily basis here in Washington. I am not only on this issue, but whatever issue the gentleman brings forward, we are ready and willing to discuss, work with and solve problems with him. He comes to the table every day very serious about these issues and truly in his heart wants to solve issues that face agriculture across the country.

Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I ask unanimous consent from this point on debate on this amendment be limited to 30 minutes with 15 minutes allotted to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg) and 15 minutes allotted to myself who will rise to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my unanimous consent request is to allow 15 minutes for the proponent of the amendment and 15 minutes in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg) to control 15 minutes and to be split between myself and the minority 7\1/2\ minutes each in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's understanding is correct. In reality, there will probably be more speakers in favor of the Rehberg amendment.

No.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. This is an issue that many of us have been working on for many years. The country-of-origin labeling provisions that were part of the last farm bill would present a nightmare to many producers in this country. Good, salt-of-the-earth people in agriculture know that this would impose up to $1 billion in additional costs to their already overworked people and to their budgets, which are already being taxed.

This is also an issue for anybody who believes that grocery stores and retailers are part of Americana in this country, and they would rise in strong opposition to this amendment because there is a liability in the country-of-origin labeling that would in essence make your friendly corner grocery store liable for trial lawyers to come in and say you did not put the fact that this calf may have been born in one country, processed in another country, and now on the meat counter in your local grocery store. Now the lawyers can come along and say, we are taking you to court, causing the price of beef to go up for American families. That is not something that would reflect favorably for anyone in this country, whether you are a producer, a retailer or a consumer.

This is a marketing issue. I realize there is an intent by this country-of-origin labeling provision to mandate that these labels be put on products. Nothing could be more anti free enterprise than to mandate labeling on a product. If consumers want this, they will ask their retailer to put it on the product so they can favor that product over another.

I am not sure what the origin of the country-of-origin labeling provision was in the last farm bill, but there is no doubt it would create additional costs that consumers would have to bear.

I would also want to compliment the chairman of the authorizing committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), for introducing a bill to make this country-of-origin labeling provision voluntary. There are dozens of cosponsors on the bill. It is a bipartisan effort. Many of us have been working on that for a long time, and we hope that this provision that I have put in this bill remains by voting no on the Rehberg amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), a distinguished Member from the great City of Midland.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

This amendment directly amends existing law.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has discussed this amendment with us and with the minority; and to forgo further debate, I would be happy to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 30 minutes, to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 303 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 303 is an open rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2744, making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006.

According to the rule general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and waives all points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, prohibiting unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in an appropriations bill, except as specified in the resolution.

Under the rules of the House, the bill shall be read for amendment by paragraph. After general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule.

The resolution authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record and provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to present for consideration this open rule for the agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006. As with most all appropriations bills, the Committee on Rules has once again afford the entire Chamber an opportunity to offer any amendment to this legislation that complies with the rules of the House.

Members of the House are permitted to come to the floor and bring forth any idea or change they wish to see in this legislation. I am pleased that rule provides a chance for all of our Members to express their views on how our Nation should prioritize spending in this area.

Article 1, section 9 of the United States Constitution says, ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law.''

Our Founding Fathers established the role of the Committee on Appropriations to ensure that our Nation's spending is subject to oversight and approval by its elected representatives. The committee plays an important role in determining the wise use of taxpayer funds.

I want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) and his subcommittee for the tremendously difficult work this year in bringing the spending bill under its budget allocation. The Congressional budget is an important tool of the Congress, allowing us to establish priorities for the coming fiscal year. It is always encouraging to see the budget and the appropriations process work together in tandem, allowing Congress to ensure that our government acts in a fiscally responsible manner.

The Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations has reported out a bill that provides important resources to ensure that our Nation's farmers and ranchers remain competitive in the 21st century. The legislation enhances our ability to safeguard our food supply and addresses the nutritional needs of women and children and the most disadvantaged in our country. The bill also works to maintain and build fiscal discipline.

H.R. 2744 continues to fund important projects at a level consistent with fiscal year 2005, allocating nearly $17 billion plus $83 billion in total mandatory spending. At the same time, it addresses needs such as the protection of health and safety. In an effort to combat harmful pests and disease that

threaten America's food supply, the Food Safety and Inspection Service funding is increased by $20 million over last year, and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service activities are funded at $16 million above last year's level, for a total of $829 million.

In addition, the Farm Service Agency's salaries and expenses are funded at the President's request of $1 billion, allowing the continued efficient delivery of farm and disaster programs that are so critical to wide swaths of our great Nation.

To unlock much-needed advances in agricultural research and allow American farmers to have the tools necessary to produce a safe and wholesome food supply, the Agricultural Research Service is funded at over $1.1 billion.

Additionally, USDA's Conservation Operations activities are increased by $26 million over the President's request, which allows farmers and ranchers to achieve important conservation and environmental goals as our Nation's farmers and ranchers are the original environmentalists in this country.

This appropriations bill is an excellent example of how Congress can attain fiscal discipline and still fund our priorities. H.R. 2744 funds programs over the President's budget request, increasing funding in strategic areas while maintaining a funding level consistent with funding for fiscal year 2005.

I am impressed with the work of the subcommittee, and I am certain the appropriations process this year will serve as a model of how we can achieve responsible and responsive funding simultaneously.

Mr. Speaker, I represent a congressional district in Florida that is among the top in the Nation in production of certain agricultural goods. I want to personally thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) and the Subcommittee on Agriculture of the Committee on Appropriations and the subcommittee staff for their continued commitment and attention to the needs of all of American agriculture and Florida in particular, especially in the aftermath of the hurricanes that devastated much of Florida's agriculture last summer and fall. The Committee on Appropriations' work is greatly appreciated.

I also wish to thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) for his attention and dedication to the continued needs resulting from invasive pests and diseases that are affecting a number of crops throughout our country, including citrus canker affecting our citrus industry in Florida. I know that all of America's farmers and ranchers and consumers deeply appreciate the subcommittee's tireless efforts to assist our agricultural community.

I urge Members to support this fair and open rule and the underlying bill.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. McGovern) comments about hunger remind me of an old proverb. ``When there is food, there are many problems. When there is no food, there is only one problem.'' The gentleman speaks very passionately about that issue. It reminds me how fortunate we are that, because of the productivity of the American farmer and rancher, that Americans spend less of their disposable income on food than any other industrialized nation and our greatest threats in terms of childhood illnesses is obesity, not hunger. And I would not trade our problem for anybody else's.

It is clearly a huge issue. I am proud of the work the appropriators have done in allocating $900 million through the emergency bill for those who were ravaged by the tsunami that struck southeast Asia.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), our distinguished majority whip.

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

Respecting the gentleman's right to get off his chest whatever he chooses to get off of his chest, I would point out that the appropriations process is far ahead of schedule, and we are on track to complete the program of passing the bills through the House before July 4.

I would also point out our appreciation to the gentleman for his support for the bill and recognition of the hard work the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and his subcommittee have put in to an outstanding agriculture appropriation bill, and appreciate the fact that, despite his misgivings about the process, he likes the work product that this committee has produced.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his comments. His passion for ending hunger in this country is laudable. This is a fair rule. It is an open rule. With the exception of those amendments that are legislating on an appropriations bill, anyone can come down here and have the opportunity to make their case for changes. So while Members have been here expressing frustrations about certain policy issues, there has been widespread agreement, including from the gentleman on the Rules Committee and including from the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations and the ranking member of the subcommittee. There has been a general agreement of support for the underlying bill that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) has produced. I am glad to see that type of bipartisan cooperation that has not been given the credit that is due here in Washington.

This is a great bill for America's resources and for the conservation element that America's farmers and ranchers are so vital in participating

in. It provides the necessary framework for disaster programs and commodity programs that allow us to continue to provide the safest, cheapest, most wholesome food supply in abundance in the world with a very small percentage of our population; and it allows us to continue to be in the forefront of technology and research and development, continuing to be on the cutting edge of having greater production, greater yields on fewer acres in the most environmentally conscious manner possible, in addition to dealing with our nutrition issues, our women, infant and children issues and school lunch programs and the other important issues for our underserved in this country.

It is a great bill, Mr. Speaker. I encourage this entire House to support the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.