Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany 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.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by telling you how impressed I am with the firm statement of principle apparently by the Republican Study Committee. Confronted with an appropriations bill that they believe wrecks the budget, violates the House rules, they are calling for a firm and principled ``present'' on the rule. That is an inspirational example of how to combat wrongdoing. It does give new meaning to the faith-based initiative. Apparently the gentleman from Indiana thinks this is a terrible rule and a bad bill, but because he has faith that by some process, apparently others will be excluded, that the chairman of the committee will fix it, he will refrain from voting against it.

I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Connecticut, who fights very hard for the most important parts of this bill, in my judgment, those which my colleague from Massachusetts alluded to, those which try to alleviate hunger, food stamps and international feeding programs, and I am pleased that they have survived the onslaught as well as they have. I hope that when we get to the reconciliation process, her efforts and the efforts of others who care about these things will succeed.

There is one aspect of the feeding program, however, where I find myself in sharp disagreement with the conference report, and at this point I would include for the record a speech given to the Kansas City Export Food Aid Conference in May by USAID Administrator Natsios.

[From the Kansas City Export Food Aid Conference, May 3, 2005]

The Local Purchase Initiative

(Remarks by Andrew S. Natsios, Administrator, U.S. Agency for

International Development)

I am very pleased to be here today to discuss U.S. food

aid--what we have done right in the past and what we can do

to improve how we conduct our food aid programs in light of

new challenges since September 11, 2001.

Last year when I was here, I talked about the success of

U.S. food aid over the past 50 years and how we have assisted

more than 3 billion people through P.L. 480 programs. Over

the past twelve months, many of you have continued to work

with people in Sri Lanka and Indonesia whose lives were

devastated as a result of the Tsunami as well as people in

Sudan, Ethiopia and Eritrea who have been hit hard by the

equally overwhelming consequences of conflict and drought. In

addition, many of your organizations contribute to long term

development programs in places like Honduras and Bangladesh

that strengthen communities so that when they face sudden or

slow onset disasters, they are prepared and better able to

cope with the setbacks. You have continued to work tirelessly

to save and improve people's lives. I appreciate the

partnerships we have created together to address food

insecurity.

I want to take a few minutes now to talk about changes in

the world over the past few years and how the change has

affected our ability to meet food aid needs. Our Agency, and

particularly our food programs now operate in an environment

characterized by increased frequency and severity of natural

and manmade disasters, terrorism, instability, the HIV/AIDS

pandemic, corruption, poor governance and conflict which has

led to increased population displacement.

The United States Government is facing increasing demands

on its diplomatic, military and humanitarian resources. And

the resources are limited. But not responding is not an

option, so we prioritize and stretch the dollars to meet as

many needs as possible as efficiently as possible.

At the same time, the World Trade Organization continues

its debate on food aid issues in the context of the current

agricultural trade negotiations. Some of the other members

would like to do away with in-kind food aid such as the P.L.

480 Title II program. The U.S. has made two presentations at

the WTO in Geneva on U.S. food aid policies and programs. At

these presentations and in the negotiations we keep reminding

member states, and relevant international organizations that

we must come to an agreement that will ensure (1) that we

maintain adequate food aid levels to meet global needs; (2)

that food aid continues to be an internationally accepted

form of assistance when it targets food insecure populations;

and (3) that we minimize any trade distortions. I won't

belabor this any further as I know that there will be a more

in-depth discussion on trade issues over the next few days.

Let me just say that we will continue to try to ensure that

the WTO Doha Development Round does not restrict in-kind food

aid. If food aid is unduly restricted, inhibit development,

increase food insecurity and create instability in developing

countries.

In President Bush's 2002 National Security Strategy, he

acknowledged the importance of fighting poverty abroad when

he defined the three pillars of our foreign policy as

Defense, Diplomacy and Development. Recognizing that we

cannot address all of today's problems using our military

or diplomatic resources, he emphasized that what we do as

development practitioners can also serve to protect vital

American national interests.

In January of this year, USAID released a paper focusing

attention on failing, failed and recovering states known as

the Fragile States Strategy. The strategy provides a focal

point for the USAID Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and

Humanitarian assistance in defining its priorities and in

carrying out its humanitarian assistance role. The strategy

promotes four basic objectives for carrying out work in

fragile, failed and failing states which are to: (1) improve

monitoring and analysis; (2) ensure that priorities respond

to realities on the ground; (3) focus programs on the source

of the fragility or weakness; and (4) create or use

streamlined operational procedures to support rapid and

effective response.

Failed states are both the incubator and sanctuary for

terrorists. Where there is no effective national government

to control terrorist organizations, these groups will

flourish. It was no accident that Sudan, Somalia, and

Afghanistan served as the base of Al Qaeda training and

planning. As the National Security Strategy document so

succinctly puts it: ``America is now threatened less by

conquering states than by failing ones.'' We now know by

painful experience that we are not immune from the

consequences that arise from state failure on other

continents.

Our underlying priorities, in working in fragile states,

are to increase stability, promote security, encourage reform

and build institutional capacity. This will address the

causes of fragility as opposed to simply targeting symptoms.

The President's 2006 budget proposes reforms which will give

USAID the programmatic tools to deal with fragile states.

In crisis situations, strategic programming of food aid can

stabilize a fragile economy by supporting local farmers and

maintaining demand for the locally produced goods, despite

the low purchasing power of those requiring assistance.

Famines can be demand driven or supply driven. A supply

driven famine is caused by reduced food production and rising

prices. In this case, importing U.S. food to increase the

food supply would be an appropriate response. A demand driven

famine is caused by the collapse of family livelihoods and

the inability of families to access food, even where there is

adequate supply and low prices. In cases where the food

supply is adequate and prices stable, but where families

cannot afford to purchase the food, an appropriate response

would be to purchase what is available locally to assist the

food insecure rather than adding U.S. food to the local

supply which could depress local prices and further aggravate

the economy.

As with all of our work in fragile countries, we need to

take a close look at all of our options when responding to

needs. The work is getting more rather than less arduous and

it is evident that we must expand the ways in which we

conduct our business. The old way of doing business is

insufficient to meet the mounting food needs in this new

environment given our limited dollars.

Despite all that we are doing, and all that the rest of the

world is doing to win the war on hunger, the number of

chronically malnourished people in the world continues to

rise, now totaling more than 850 million people. And though

the prevalence of undernourishment has fallen in 30

developing countries since the early 1990s, poverty and

conflict have contributed to its growth elsewhere.

In the past decade, and especially in the past several

years, conflict-related emergencies and natural disasters

have created global food needs beyond the capacity of the

U.S. and other donors to respond using the options currently

available to us. In specific situations, when food pipelines

break or when conflicts pause and we need to move food in

quickly to save lives, we need to be able to access food more

quickly.

In his book on famine, Fred Cuny stated that ``the chances

of saving lives at the outset of a [relief] operation are

greatly reduced when food is imported. By the time it arrives

in the country and gets to people, many will have died.'' He

goes on to say that ``evidence suggests the massive food

shipments sent to Ethiopia in 1985 had little impact on the

outcome of the famine . . . and that by the time it arrived

in sufficient, steady quantities in the rural areas, the

death rate had peaked and was already declining.''

Some of the starkest evidence we have of deaths directly

related to a slow food aid response took place in Gode,

Ethiopia, the epicenter of the 2000 famine there, which

threatened over 10 million people with starvation. While the

famine was eventually averted--the Centers for Disease

Control has estimated that in Gode, 20,000 deaths resulted

from the crisis in that region alone with an estimated 78,000

deaths in four other regions. Seventy-seven percent of the

deaths in Gode occurred before the major relief interventions

began in the summer of 2000 and more than half of the deaths

were of children under the age of five.

One way to respond to the needs more quickly is to purchase

food locally, but this requires us to have access to cash.

When food emergencies are a function of localized drought,

conflict or crop failure from disease or locusts with food

available close-by, local purchase can be critical.

USAID is searching for innovative ways to stretch its

dollars and meet the needs of the most vulnerable populations

with emergency and developmental food assistance. One way of

doing this is to provide cash which could be used to purchase

food in the country or region where an emergency is taking

place.

For FY 2006, President Bush has taken the initiative to

provide this tool to USAID humanitarian officers and has put

a request into the FY 2006 budget asking that $300 million be

shifted out of P.L. 480 Title II and into the International

Disaster and Famine Assistance (IDFA) account to be used as

cash for meeting emergency food needs. Specifically, the

President stated in his budget that ``This funding will

permit USAID to provide food assistance in the most timely

and efficient manner to the most critical emergency food

crises. This assistance will be used in those instances where

the rapid use of cash assistance is critical to saving

lives.''

One of the factors behind this request is the length of

time that it takes to ship food commodities from the United

States to an emergency. Shipping in-kind assistance from the

U.S. normally requires three or four months to arrive at an

emergency distribution point once it is ordered. Having the

option to purchase the food in the same country or region

where an emergency is happening would enable us to get food

to hungry people faster. It would save lives and would fill a

critical gap until U.S. commodities arrive at the site. In

addition to providing a faster option, local purchases of

food will, in many cases, save the dollars that would

otherwise have been spent on transportation costs, allowing

us to purchase additional food aid to feed more people.

The primary purpose of the Title II program is to save

lives and having more flexibility in our programs to use cash

to buy food locally will save lives. The fact that U.S.

farmers and shippers are able to benefit from the Food for

Peace program is an important, but secondary benefit. It is

not the primary objective of the program. The primary

objective is to save lives.

In responding to pending crises, USAID has limited options:

We can order a shipment of U.S. commodities which can be

expected to arrive at the distribution site within 3 to 4

months of purchase.

We can access food from pre-positioned U.S. commodity

stocks or swap commodities from other food pipelines.

However, the limited pre-positioned stocks are not always

adequate or suitable for every situation and increasingly

thin pipelines have lately rendered swaps infeasible.

Within the past year, we have established a pre-position

warehouse in Dubai, UAE to store commodities until they are

needed in an emergency. While this is extremely useful, we

cannot always preposition the amount or appropriate mix of

commodities that would be needed in every emergency. Also,

pre-positioning will not solve every problem. For example,

currently Ethiopia is facing an unexpectedly severe food

crisis and while the current supplemental budget has a

sizable increase in food aid, it cannot be used to order food

until the President signs it. When this happens, we will need

to order the commodities in the U.S., ship them, and then

wait for them to arrive in Ethiopia several months from now.

Needless deaths will occur while we wait. If we had the

flexibility to purchase food locally, we could purchase the

commodities in or near Ethiopia once the legislation is

signed, getting the food to the people who need it months

sooner. This is not a hypothetical situation--it is taking

place as we speak.

Another option that we have to meet emergencies is to

divert U.S. commodities headed to other programs on the high

seas. And while this has been done, it is an extremely costly

intervention. It means that another program will suffer, and

ultimately means less money for commodities.

The ability to purchase food supplies in local or regional

markets would give us one more option for meeting critical

needs. While this will not always be viable, this flexibility

will make a difference in the reduction of human suffering.

I want to be very clear that this requested change is not

an attack on the U.S. farmers or the U.S. maritime industry.

The contributions that many of you have made in feeding

hungry people overseas is notable and will continue to be a

critical, basic component of how the U.S. conducts its

management of food aid. The Administration has no intention

of changing how the United States runs its food aid programs

in general. This is not the beginning of a push to make our

food aid program an all-cash program. I personally would

oppose any kind of proposal to make more than one quarter of

our food aid budget available for local purchase. The greater

portion of U.S. food aid must continue to be purchased in

American markets where the supply is assured for emergencies

where large volume is needed.

One thing that I have been asked repeatedly is: How will we

sustain support on Capitol Hill for these humanitarian food

aid programs, if the benefits to the U.S. agricultural and

shipping industries are perceived to be decreased? The budget

for OFDA, the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, and the

Refugee Program budget have been as stable in funding as the

Food for Peace budget, and these two budgets contain no

guaranteed purchase of U.S. commodities. Americans, including

those who have been intimately involved in our food aid

programs in the past, will strongly support USAID's effort to

improve the U.S. food response to humanitarian emergencies by

making that response as flexible and effective as possible to

save more lives and reduce suffering. I believe that

compassion for those who are suffering is part of the moral

fabric of this society. This was evident to me in the massive

outpouring of private cash contributions to help the victims

of the Tsunami and I believe that it holds true here.

Stretching our emergency resources further will also help

to protect our development programs from being tapped to meet

emergency needs.

I know that many of you have questions about how we will

run this program and I will try to answer as many of them as

possible.

The Administration has requested that the money be placed

in the International Disaster and Famine Account. This is the

emergency account managed by our Office of Foreign Disaster

Assistance. However, the $300 million designated to this

account for the purchase of food aid will be managed by the

Office of Food for Peace, which currently manages the Title

II food aid program. As Food for Peace currently has the

responsibility for and the expertise in managing food aid,

they are the appropriate group to administer this money. The

money, like current Title II money, will be programmed

primarily through NGOs and the World Food Program.

One of the questions that I have been asked is: Is there

enough food available in local markets to meet our emergency

needs? Though local purchase will not support all of our food

aid initiatives, there is food available for purchase in

developing countries. In 2004 more than $680 million worth of

food aid was purchased from developing countries by WFP in

order to meet local food aid needs. Developing countries able

to supply food aid commodities have included (but are not

limited to) Indonesia, Pakistan, South Africa and Sudan. This

method not only provides food more quickly and more cheaply,

it also supports the local economy and helps improve the

livelihoods of poor farmers.

We follow the principle of ``Do no Harm'' in local markets.

The $300 million will not all be used to purchase and program

food in a single country, but in a variety of countries,

reducing the impact on local markets. We also intend to apply

Title II legislated requirements such as Bellmon and Usual

Marketing Requirement, where local purchases are conducted to

ensure that there will be no displacement of commercial

sales, or negative impact on local markets.

I have also been asked several times why we can't just use

our notwithstanding authority under Title II to make local

purchases. I have been told in no uncertain terms by our

USAID lawyers that we cannot use our notwithstanding

authority for local purchases. Title II authorizes the

donation of American agricultural commodities.

Notwithstanding authority was not intended for, nor can it be

used to create additional authority that would allow the

purchase of foreign commodities. The notwithstanding clause

can waive existing federal laws which slow down emergency

response, but it cannot be used to invent new authority not

now available under Title II. As it is currently written,

Title II can not be used to purchase commodities locally.

We do not intend for this money to be used in purchasing

commodities from other developed nations. If food aid is not

available for local purchase under appropriate market

conditions in developing countries with some proximity to the

emergency need, the food aid will be purchased in the United

States.

I want to close with another example of where this type of

program could be used effectively.

In the past in southern Sudan, small farmers in the fertile

western farming areas have often produced small grain

surpluses, while hundreds of thousands of Sudanese in other

parts of the country have urgently needed food aid. If we

were able to strategically and carefully buy the surpluses to

meet food aid needs elsewhere in the same country, we would

end up sustaining and improving the lives of both groups.

Should signatories comply with the July Peace Accords, there

is a real possibility that agricultural output could return

to its former level and the region would once again act as an

important regional cereal supplier. However, if using donated

food commodities from the U.S. remains our only option, we

risk lowering demand for the local production and destroying

price incentives for the local farmers to improve their

production to meet future food aid needs.

I would be happy to take your questions.

Mr. Speaker, the issue was this. We give food aid, and that is generous. Under the rules that will be maintained by this bill, the aid can only be given in kind; that is, we ship the actual physical food. That has obvious advantages in that it helps the American farmer while it helps those in need. Particularly for nonemergency food aid, that is an entirely legitimate way to go. In some emergency situations, maybe in many, it is the right way to go.

The problem is under current law, the American foreign aid administrators are not allowed to use any of this food aid by buying the food near where the emergency happens. That is one reason why a large part of the food aid is taken up in transportation costs. I understand there are maritime interests like that, but that is not an appropriate way, it seems to me, to go about trying to help them.

Inevitably, not inevitably, correctly, much of the food aid will be that bulk aid. But to maintain a position that we will never use any of the food aid to buy the food on site, nearby, in ways that it can be done in ways that do not disturb local markets is a grave error.

What bothers me about this appropriation is not simply that it bans that from happening, and I give credit to the administration and to the President, Administrator Natsios, my former legislative colleague from Massachusetts, who asked for the authority to do this. When that was rejected outright, there were various compromises proposed. The senior Senator from Ohio Mr. DeWine, I think senior, whatever, proposed a compromise in which a percentage of the emergency aid would be available.

We are not talking, those of us who support this, about making all of even the emergency aid cash-based, but there ought to be a capacity in the Administrator to put some of the money that is appropriated into buying food locally. Now, I know, by the way, there are people on the Committee on Agriculture that say, no, that would be bad for the local markets. Mr. Speaker, I have a rule in politics: Try not to say anything that no one will believe is really your motive.

When you look at this agricultural bill and American agricultural policy and the devastation our subsidy policy wreaks on local food markets, the notion that the people who make American agriculture policy in this Congress are really concerned about the poor local farmers is risible. We obviously have ways of dealing with the local impact, and I believe that Administrator Natsios is absolutely right.

There is another argument here to which I give more credibility, and that is some of the organizations that are engaged in international development of food aid are the intermediaries here, and they get the food and they sell it, and they then use the money in various good ways. And these are good organizations.

I will note that two of the major organizations here, OXFAM and CARE, have decided, no, they do not need to have 100 percent of the aid being given in bulk, and that a percentage of the emergency aid, that is all we are talking about, a percentage of the emergency aid being available, not mandated, but being available when appropriate, to be bought on site or nearby, not right on site, but nearby, that is better. There are other organizations that have concerns.

I notice one of them is the Catholic Relief Services, which does great work. I do want to express great concern, Mr. Speaker. I hope in consequence to the what the President sent this House on Wednesday, I hope that Catholic Relief Services, because they want to help people overseas, will not be told the that Catholic Church cannot do voter registration to get out the vote, which is what some people would say if they helped people locally. So I hope that the restrictions on the Catholic Church and other good organizations that the majority wants to apply if they are doing things domestically to help the poor will not also apply to their international efforts. I hope we will work out a compromise.

Let me close by saying I was particularly disturbed by this language, and it

is the Republican majority, the great believers in openness, the great principled reformers, here is what their report says, the majority report, on this bill. ``The conferees further admonish the executive branch to refrain from proposals which place at risk a carefully balanced coalition of interests which have served the interests of international food assistance programs well for more than 50 years.''

In other words, we got a deal going here. Take your principles and get out of here before you upset the apple cart. Do not come to us talking about a more efficient way to provide emergency food aid to people, because you might break up our political deal.

Some reform.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for what she says. I know she is very much on the side of doing this in the right way, and confronted with particular facts, you have to deal with things. So I do believe that a rational food aid policy will include some flexibility on buying the food in an emergency, time and everything else, but I certainly agree it should not come at the expense of the overall program.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his statement. I am pleased to join with him today as we complete the work on this year's Agriculture appropriations bill, the first in my capacity as ranking member of the agriculture appropriations subcommittee.

It has been a pleasure to work with Chairman Bonilla and his staff to put together this bill, as well as with Chairman Lewis and Ranking Member Obey in an effort to get here today.

I want to say thank you to the subcommittee staffs for their hard work. It truly is yeoman's work. I know that the staffs met for several weeks to iron out the differences between the House and Senate bills. We certainly appreciate all of their hard work.

This has been a privilege. When I chose to sit on this subcommittee 9 years ago, I did so because I have always believed that the issues overseen by this subcommittee speak to the core responsibilities of the Federal Government. This is the only subcommittee where farm policy, rural development, conservation, nutrition programs, food safety, drug regulation and public health all come together.

As such, it is my belief that the bill that we discuss today is more than a list of programs and funding levels. It is a statement of values, principles and priorities. So when we discuss this bill, I believe we think of it in those terms. We should remember that farm programs, international trade promotion and advocacy that help our farmers across the country sell our products may have profound implications on our Nation's overall economy and quality of life. The research programs at USDA are critical to our efforts to protect our agriculture products, our national herd and our public health.

Indeed, there are many aspects of the bill that I am very proud of, particularly in the area of rural development. Whether it is affordable housing, clean drinking water or sewage systems, access to remote educational and medical resources, we know that rural America faces serious economic development challenges. And I believe the President's budget failed to address those challenges, decimating many rural development programs.

And despite our hard work, the overall figure remains below the level of last year's House bill, well below the 2004 level, and I am afraid that the funding shortfall in this bill will lead to long-term problems with rural infrastructure.

But together we made real headway in reversing those cuts. Indeed, I am proud of the work we were able to accomplish with respect to affordable housing in rural America. We were able to keep the House level on section 502 single family direct loans, which help low- and very low-income households obtain homeownership; and 515 loans for multifamily housing projects to provide living units for people with low and moderate incomes in rural areas. The agreement provides $141 million and $10 million over the respective Senate levels.

We also agreed to a new $9 million demonstration program under section 515 to preserve affordable rural multifamily housing. We created a new $16 million rental housing voucher program to protect tenants residing in section 515 multifamily housing from being threatened by their landlords, as well as preserving a nearly $3 million low-income multifamily housing preservation revolving fund in the Senate bill.

We made sure to secure language regarding Farm Service Agency office closings. FSA provides that critical link between the farmer and the Federal Government's critical services, delivering assistance to specialty crop producers, disbursal of payments for programs such as the peanut buyout, and the handling of disaster assistance payments. Our language ensures that if FSA closes any field offices, it would require public hearings in the affected areas so that the voices of the community will be heard by USDA before any action is taken, and giving Congress 120 days advance notice.

Of course, this bill's impact on the public health is significant as well, from FDA's responsibilities to feeding programs, which urban areas like my hometown of New Haven rely on for women, infants and children, for schools, and for seniors and the disabled living on the edge of poverty. Ensuring that these programs are both funded and operated efficiently is, in my opinion, among the very serious obligations of government, obligations we are charged in the subcommittee with overseeing.

I am pleased that we agreed to the funding levels in the House and Senate bills for the Women, Infants and Children Program in the conference agreement. We also protected the program's reserve fund in the unlikely case the current estimates in funding prove too low.

I was particularly pleased we were able to secure strong report language directing the Secretary of USDA to tell all agencies to take all necessary steps to keep avian flu out of the U.S., providing a report to us by March of next year on the progress of those efforts. We need to do whatever it takes to aggressively tackle this urgent public health matter, including engaging USDA in that effort. We also added strong report language calling on FDA to develop a response plan on human-to-human transmission of avian influenza.

I thank the chairman for working with me to double the annual funding for review of direct-to-consumer ads by FDA, as well as another $5 million for the highest-priority drug safety needs at the FDA. In 2001, the drug industry spent $2.7 billion on direct-to-consumer advertising, but the FDA office charged with ensuring that those ads are accurate was funded at only $884,000. Doubling that amount is a small start toward remedying the inequitable advantage, and the $5 million will be devoted to the most critical aspects of drug safety.

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased by many aspects of this bill. I was particularly pleased that after several years we had an opportunity to participate in a conference meeting to resolve several outstanding issues, and to do so in a public capacity. But I was disappointed that same openness and transparency did not carry all the way through to the resolution of all outstanding issues.

And there is much to be done, from food stamps and drug reimportation to reform at FDA and meat labeling. As the agency entrusted with ensuring the safety of our food and drug supply and to protect the public health, we all understand how important it is that we maintain FDA's integrity. But the past year has been particularly difficult, from the flu vaccine shortages caused by inept manufacturing oversight to delayed withdrawal of medicines such as Vioxx that have resulted in thousands of unreported deaths to ongoing safety concerns regarding medical devices.

Restoring integrity to FDA starts with providing better guidelines in the makeup of its advisory committees. What is particularly troubling is the granting of waivers by FDA to scientists and other experts who have potential conflicts of interest. Permitting these experts to serve and vote regardless of conflict is wrong. This must stop. FDA ought to rely on the opinions of unconflicted, fully qualified professional advisers so that the agency can receive the best unbiased advice possible.

The House adopted an amendment 218-210 that would have stopped the granting of such waivers for 1 year for voting members of FDA advisory committees. I believe this was the right approach. Surely we have enough doctors and scientists in this country that we can find unbiased solutions. The Senate adopted language that fails to address the issue by allowing the current practice at FDA to continue. In an effort to break the deadlock on the issue, I offered a compromise amendment at the conference, an amendment that the chairman graciously supported, but the Senate would not accept.

I am disappointed with the language that the majority put into the conference agreement. I think it will both deter people from serving on advisory committees, while failing to stop the FDA from granting conflict of interest waivers to scientists, allowing them to continue on these advisory committees. My hope is in the coming year we can resolve the problem.

Another serious shortcoming in the bill is in the area of country of origin

labeling, giving people the information they need to make an informed choice to protect the safety of their families. Thirty-five other countries we trade with already have a country of origin food labeling system in place, this at a time when food imports are increasing, avian flu poses a serious risk, but the number of inspections of imported meat are decreasing.

And given the fact that we continue to have major recalls of meat products, this effort is also about being able to trace back contaminated product in the event of a recall. Knowing the source of an outbreak is critical to the process so we can quickly take action to prevent people from getting sick.

Unfortunately, this conference report pushes back any action to implement a labeling system until September 2008. It expands the moratorium to include fruits and vegetables, something that was not in the House bill. I regret to say this is a serious failing, a decision on which we had no input. I hope the Congress will revisit this soon.

Perhaps the biggest disappointment in this bill, one so antithetical to the subcommittee's mission that I believe it undermines much of the good work we have done in the past year, is our failure to protect the integrity of the food stamp program, one of the most effective, well- run Federal programs we have.

Twenty-five million citizens receive food stamp benefits, children, seniors, low-income families, many displaced by the recent hurricanes. Despite these immense responsibilities, this bill allows a plan to delegate certification and enrollment of recipients for food stamps to a private firm with no accountability or quality assurances.

But the Texas Food Stamp Privatization Plan would lay off at least 1,200 State workers, closing more than a quarter of State-run eligibility offices around the State, replacing staff at low hourly rates. Major responsibilities would fall to community organizations, which have admitted they do not have the capacity to handle. Clients would be forced to travel long distances or rely on the Internet for services, with serious implications for seniors, low-income families and those with disabilities.

In addition, the plan appears to flout the law, conflicting with Federal statutes governing the food stamp program which require States to obtain a waiver from USDA.

What makes this so unfortunate is that it is so unnecessary. The food stamp program right now is operating with the lowest error rate it has ever had. Texas itself has a very well-operated program. This is not simply about an isolated issue in Texas. Taxpayers all over the country pay half the cost of running the food stamp program. We have an obligation to ensure that the program is run effectively, efficiently and in compliance with the law. Quite simply, the conference report fails to fulfill that obligation, one of our most serious responsibilities for this subcommittee.

Just let me mention one or two areas of concern that I have. The House and Senate adopted identical language prohibiting the use of Federal funds for the inspection of horses for slaughter for human food. It was a wide margin on roll calls in both Houses. Still there were concerns that the provision would be dropped, and in the final agreement between House and Senate, I was pleased to see the prohibition maintained, even if it was delayed for 120 days.

I am confused by the notion as the bill was ready to be filed that there was included a completely new authorizing legislation on horse slaughter, making it parliamentarily impossible to offer this amendment ever again on the House floor. It seems to me that flies in the face of our democratic process.

Another provision that was not either in the House or Senate bill or discussed in conference which was inserted without debate before the conference report was filed has to do with a series of changes to the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990. Members may be dismayed to know that section 796 of the bill contains language permanently amending the Immigration and Nationality Act. It was adopted by the Senate as part of the bill. I do not know why the sponsor had to have it enacted now without careful consideration and hearing, and why it was included in the agriculture appropriations bill.

As I pointed out, I think we made tremendous progress, and we are going to move forward and adopt this piece of legislation. Despite my concerns, it has been a pleasure working with the chairman on this effort on this important bill. I believe we do have much to be proud of. We can feel a sense of accomplishment about the finished product. My hope is we can address the issues where there still appear to be differences and that we can move forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, let me just say once again what a pleasure it has been to work with the chairman and his staff, in particular, Maureen Holohan, Leslie Barrack, Jennifer Miller, and Martin Delgado. I appreciate all of their efforts and good work.

As I say to my staff, I was in a staff position before and all of this does not happen by some alchemy. It happens because good people do a lot of good work. I am most appreciative of the assistance from Rob Nabors and Martha Foley and, from my own staff, Ashley Turton and Leticia Mederos.

I will support the conference report.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by commending committee Chairman Lewis and subcommittee Chairman Bonilla as well as committee Ranking Member Obey and subcommittee Ranking Member DeLauro for bringing a freestanding fiscal year 2006 agriculture appropriations conference report to the floor today.

For the first time in several years, the agriculture appropriations conference report has not been folded into an omnibus bill and is allowed to be voted on up or down on its own merits. Until this year, that has been a rare accomplishment, and I believe our distinguished colleagues deserve to be commended for their efforts.

Mr. Speaker, while I will support the conference report, I do have some concerns with the final conference report

and with the process by which it has been completed; and I am going to let some of the others who are on the Appropriations Committee talk about that in more detail. But, apparently, there were serious policy disagreements between the House and the Senate that were magically resolved without any vote by the conferees. There are examples of identical provisions, passed in both bodies, being changed in the conference committee even though House rules preclude such provisions from being rewritten. I think we can do much better than that, Mr. Speaker.

I also have some policy concerns with this conference report. One provision that was dropped in the conference had to do with privatization of the administering of the food stamp program. Senator Harkin and others in the Senate had some serious concerns with a proposal in Texas to allow Accenture to administer the State's food stamp program. Their concerns led to the inclusion of a provision preventing such privatization. Senator Harkin attempted to modify that provision for inclusion in the final conference report, but his effort was rejected. Ultimately, the provision was dropped altogether from the conference report.

I am very concerned about a wholesale change like this in the food stamp program. The conference report actually allows every State to privatize their food stamp programs. We may find out that this is a good thing, but I do not believe we should rush into such a big change without testing it first in a few pilot programs. The food stamp program is one of the best run Federal and State programs and should not be subjected to such a wholesale change.

Another provision that I am concerned about is the country of origin labeling provision. The 2002 farm bill set a date certain for country of origin labeling for various meat, poultry, and produce products. I was disappointed by past efforts that have delayed portions of this provision. This conference report delays enactment of country of origin labeling until 2008, and it is time to let the country of origin labeling provisions take effect like the Congress intended when it passed the 2002 farm bill.

I am also concerned about other provisions dealing with organic produce, the way the Food and Drug Advisory Panel is regulated, and horse slaughter. The horse slaughter provisions are extremely troubling, primarily because majorities in both the House and Senate voted for amendments banning the slaughter of horses for human consumption. This provision should not have been rewritten in conference, and I am disappointed with the conference committee's actions on all three of these issues.

However, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not highlight, in my opinion, one of the most positive aspects of this conference report. As many of my colleagues know, I am a strong supporter of the George McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program. I am pleased that President Bush requested $100 million in his fiscal year 2006 budget, and I am pleased this conference report funds the McGovern-Dole program at $100 million. It is still far less than I believe we should be funding it; but, nevertheless, it is an increase over last year's level.

Modeled after the U.S. school breakfast and lunch programs, the McGovern-Dole program is successful, it is well run, and it is a popular program that provides food for children in school settings around the world. Named after former Senators George McGovern and Bob Dole, this program is operating around the world and has fed millions of children in countries like Afghanistan and Colombia and other developing countries.

Mr. Speaker, it is not just I who supports this program. The Secretary of Agriculture, Mike Johanns, sent me a letter earlier this year expressing the administration's support for the program. Specifically, the Secretary mentions ``the positive results of increased enrollment, decline in absenteeism, improved concentration, energy, and attitudes toward learning; and infrastructure improvements . . .'' But beyond these, he mentions how important it is that countries are already graduating out of this program. In other words, some countries are getting ready to end their involvement in the McGovern-Dole program because they are now able to provide the school feeding programs themselves. They have become self-sustaining.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, Secretary Johanns notes how important the program is and how important proper funding is despite the challenges facing the Federal budget. I will insert this letter from Secretary Johanns into the Record at this point.

U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC.

Hon. James P. McGovern,

U.S. 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 succcssful 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

WorId 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, I believe the world community, and that includes the United States, can do better in combating hunger in the world. There are 850 million hungry people in the world; 300 million are children. Of those 300 million, half of them do not go to school; and of those who do not go to school, they are mostly girls. We need to change that reality, and the McGovern-Dole program helps mightily toward changing that reality. The fact is we cannot effectively combat disease and overpopulation and illiteracy or deal effectively with sustainability in developing countries if we do not commit ourselves to universal education; and the way we get to universal education, in large part, is through school feeding programs.

I would also argue that the McGovern-Dole program does some other important things. It gives people around the world who otherwise would not have any hope, it gives them hope. It gives them a chance to believe that their children will get an education and actually succeed in the world. It gives countries the ability to look forward to truly develop in a way where they can have economies that can support their people. I also think it goes a long way in improving the image of the United States around the world at a time when I think we desperately need to improve our image, because I believe that this is the kind of program that a majority of people, Republicans and Democrats, people from red States and blue States, all think is what America stands for. We are about helping people. We are about giving people a chance.

Let me finally say, Mr. Speaker, that I hope at some point the Republican

leadership and the Democratic leadership in this House can come together and focus more acutely and more effectively on the issue of hunger here at home in the United States and around the world. There are some problems that we cannot solve in my lifetime, but hunger is not one of them. We can do so much better. We have the resources. We have the infrastructure. What we need is the political will, and that is my hope.

I want to thank Chairman Lewis, Chairman Bonilla, Ranking Member Obey, and Ranking Member DeLauro, along with subcommittee members Emerson and Kaptur, who are strong supporters of the McGovern-Dole program, for their hard work and for increasing funding in this program to $100 million for fiscal year 2006. I truly appreciate their efforts. Again, despite some of my concerns with the process and a few policy matters, I think overall this is a good conference report. I will support it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman who just spoke from Indiana, I appreciate the fact that he is sensitive to when House rules are violated. I just wish he would join with us when the House rules are violated routinely on a number of rules that deal with a number of important pieces of legislation.

I would also say, too, this legislation, I think, is good for a whole bunch of reasons, but one of the reasons is because it provides money for food stamps, WIC and feeding programs. Feeding people is, I think, an important issue, and especially in the aftermath of the hurricanes that have hit the gulf coast. There are a lot more people that are going to need to take advantage of some of the programs that are encompassed in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague from Massachusetts for raising some very interesting points. I had spoken earlier about the McGovern-Dole program, which I feel very strongly about. One of the good things about the way this program has been set up is it provides flexibility so that if, in fact, you need to respond to a particular need in a country, to provide food, and there is no food that you can buy in that country, you can use American agricultural produce to be able to feed people.

If, in fact, you can buy locally, if there is enough food to buy locally, you can monetize our agricultural riches, and you can then buy the products locally. You can also monetize it to help pay for transportation of some of this food. So it seems to me that it is not all one way or another way, it is somewhere in between, and we need to continue to work this out. But you need to have flexibility in these programs.

Again, I think the McGovern-Dole program is a good example of what works.

I should also say that Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos are on the floor from the International Relations Committee. Both have been very, very helpful in promoting the McGovern-Dole program, and I am grateful for their efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member on the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. Speaker, I again want to commend Chairman Bonilla and Ranking Member DeLauro for their great work and the members of the committee, and I urge support of the conference report.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 520 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 520 is a rule providing for consideration of the conference report on 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, all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration are waived. The conference report shall be considered as read.

Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to present for consideration the rule for the conference report for agriculture appropriations for fiscal year 2006. I would like to commend Chairman Bonilla, Chairman Lewis, and the entire Appropriations Committee for their hard work this year. The congressional budget is an important tool of Congress, allowing us to establish our priorities for the coming fiscal year.

The agriculture appropriations subcommittee 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 children and the most disadvantaged in our country. The bill also works to maintain and build fiscal discipline.

In total, the bill provides $17.1 billion in discretionary resources. This level represents an increase of $258 million, only 1\1/2\ percent over the fiscal year 2005-enacted level.

The bill continues our commitment to protecting human health and safety. In an effort to combat harmful pests and disease that threaten American agriculture, the Food Safety and Inspection Service is increased by $20 million over last year for a total of $838 million, an increase of $127 million above the President's request. And APHIS, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, activities are funded at $7 million above last year for a total of $820 million.

I am pleased that the conference report fulfills our commitments to important food and nutrition programs. Child nutrition programs are funded at $12.7 billion, $879 million above last year and $245 million above the President's request. To provide quality nutrition for Women, Infants, and Children, the WIC program is funded at $5.3 billion, $22 million more than last year.

In addition, the conference report supports American farmers, ranchers, and rural areas. The Farm Service Agency salaries and expenses are funded at the President's request of $1 billion, allowing the continued delivery of farm and disaster programs. To unlock much- needed advances in agricultural research and allow American farmers to have the tools necessary to continue to produce a safe and wholesome, affordable food supply, the Agricultural Research Service is funded at $1.266 billion.

USDA's Conservation Observations are increased by $72 million over the President's request, bringing 2006 funding to $840 million, an increase over last year. This will allow farmers and ranchers to achieve important conservation and environment goals, recognizing that farmers and ranchers are the original environmentalists.

This appropriations bill is an example of how Congress can attain fiscal discipline and still fund our necessary programs. The conference report on H.R. 2744 funds programs over the President's budget request, increasing funding in strategic areas, while maintaining fiscal discipline. I am impressed with the work of the conferees, 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. And I want to personally thank Chairman Bonilla and Chairman Lewis and the agriculture appropriations subcommittee staff for their ongoing commitment to the needs of Florida's agriculture, which has been ravaged now by a number of hurricanes over the past 2 years and a number of invasive plants, pests, and diseases.

I particularly thank Chairman Bonilla for his understanding and diligence in fighting the spread of citrus canker in the groves of my State. I know that the people of Florida deeply appreciate the subcommittee's tireless efforts to assist our State's agriculture economy.

I urge Members to support the rule and the underlying conference report.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts comments and certainly share his concern about the need to deal with world hunger problems.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), a gentleman who represents a group of people who are doing their own part to fight that. He represents the breadbasket of the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, as always, the gentleman from Massachusetts' rapier wit is as sharp as ever, but in this case misdirected as his faults are with the underlying bill itself and not with the rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the speakers on both sides of the aisle. I agree with them that Chairman Bonilla has led a very balanced process as we move agricultural policy in this country into the 21st century. It is a large appropriations bill. It covers a wide array of needs in this Nation, from WIC and child nutrition programs, to the conservation side and all that that entails in terms of making sure that we are not eroding our valuable topsoil, making sure that we have wildlife habitat, and making sure that environmentalists understand that farmers are the true stewards of that land. And frankly, at the root of the bill, the most important service, is to allow American farmers and ranchers to continue to grow the safest, most affordable, most abundant food supply and be able to feed not only our country but the rest of the world as well.

It is a real tribute that there is bipartisan support for this legislation to make sure that we are competitive in the 21st century, that we are compliant with our global trade agreements, that we are continuing to push ahead in fighting the war against hunger, making sure that we continue to fight the war against obesity, and allowing our farmers and ranchers to be competitive.

So it is a testament to the bill, and it is a testament to the authors of that bill on both sides of the aisle.

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

The previous question was ordered.

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

Mr. Speaker, if I can briefly address the just prior conversation, I will commend my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) in terms of trying to make some clarification on the issue of food assistance.

I also will commend my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) in this regard: I know where his heart is on food assistance; it is where we all need to be. I will tell you that we can discuss the nature of the problem in terms of the distribution, but I think what was particularly important in this committee was when we first had the money presented for food assistance, it was less, less, in the President's budget than we had in the prior year, and it was split between our committee and sending money to AID, thereby lowering the dollar amount by about $265 million.

We were adamant about trying to maintain a higher level of assistance, and, I tell you, without having the benefit of getting back that $265 million from AID, we were able to bring the dollar amount on food assistance up to $1.1 billion, which we are proud of, and that is part of the admonition in the conference report.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say thank you again to my colleague for yielding to me. I want to say thank you to Chairman Bonilla for working to deliver this bill to the floor and for working across the aisle. I have enjoyed working with him, even when we differ on issues and priorities. I know that he takes the responsibilities as Chair very, very seriously, and I have a deep respect for him for that.

In addition, I want to say thank you to his staff and the gentleman from Wisconsin's staff and my staff, all of whom have worked so diligently this year and for long hours. These are good public servants, all of them.

I am particularly pleased that after several years we had the opportunity to participate in a conference meeting to resolve several outstanding issues in a public capacity. Indeed, we had an open conversation and a discussion about matters including conflict of interest waivers on FDA advisory boards, the integrity of the food stamp program and our national animal identification system, to name but a few.

I only wish that the same spirit of openness and transparency with which we discussed those issues had guided the conference efforts to resolve them, because I believe what we are doing is important here.

The programs funded through this bill directly impact the everyday lives of Americans, from public health to the FDA, to rural development, infrastructure maintenance, environmental conservation and preservation, nutrition assistance at home and abroad. Failure to adequately invest in these programs will have a serious long-term consequence for our Nation.

Unfortunately, in some of these areas, the bill falls short. I believe the President's budget failed to meet the needs of rural America, decimating rural development programs. This bill makes some headway in reversing cuts made by the President, providing $80 million more than the President's request for rural water and waste grants, for example. However, I am concerned that this number remains below the level in last year's House bill and well below the 2004 level.

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

In addition, this bill covers the funding of the most important agency in the entire government: the Food and Drug Administration. FDA oversees the safety of products that Americans use every day, the vast majority of our processed and fresh foods, our prescription drugs, our medical devices, and our blood supply. And this agency has had many problems over the last year, from abrupt resignations of key staff, to the recalls of Bextra and Vioxx, to hearings that have exposed the fissures that have developed between drug safety scientists and the senior management at FDA.

Along those lines, I want to say thank you again to Chairman Bonilla for working with me to include funding to double the annual funding for review of 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. Doubling that amount is a small start toward remedying the problem. The $5 million will be devoted to the most critical aspects of drug safety.

There are other issues, of course, that I look forward to discussing later on today, but I believe there are areas in which we have made real progress and others which I hope that we can revisit in the next budget cycle.