Condemning Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's threats against Israel.

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 chairman for the time.

I rise to strongly condemn the statements made by Iran's so-called President and to call on the international community at the United Nations to take swift action to compel Iran to change its destructive behavior.

I rise in support of this resolution, and I thank Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos and our leadership for bringing this important measure before this House this morning.

Earlier this week, Iran's so-called President called for Israel to be wiped off the map and for a new wave of Palestinian attacks to destroy the Jewish State.

He further stated that anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nations' fury, while any Islamic leader who recognizes the Zionist regime means that he is acknowledging the surrender and the defeat of the Islamic world.

Nations throughout the world have condemned the regime's comments, but the international community needs to do more.

The Iranian leadership has a history of calling for the wholesale destruction of Israel. On December 14, 2001, the current president of Iran's Expediency Council and the former Iranian President Rafsanjani threatened Israel with nuclear attack saying that the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything in Israel, while it will merely harm the Islamic world.

Iran's behavior is a threat to peace and security and, as such, runs contrary to the United Nations Charter and the spirit of an organization built upon the ashes of the Second World War.

In calling for the destruction of Israel, Iran, a U.N. member state, stands in grave breach of the U.N. Charter which stipulates that member states must foster peaceful relations with one another.

My colleagues and I are circulating letters to Secretary Rice and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan calling not only for Iran to be censured, as this resolution rightfully does, but for the U.N. Security Council to recommend expulsion of Iran from the United Nations system.

I support this resolution before us because it calls for all civilized nations to consider measures to deny Iran the means to carry out its threats and to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

However, Mr. Speaker, we need to do more to secure concrete actions from our allies. We need to leverage all of our political, diplomatic, and economic tools to ensure that Iran does not cross the nuclear threshold, that it stops its chemical and biological weapons program, that it ends its sponsorship of terror and it stops oppressing its own people.

H.R. 282, the Iran Freedom Support Act, which I introduced with my distinguished colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), provides a comprehensive, multi-tiered, non-military approach to the Iranian threat. The legislation has 325 co-sponsors, and I urge that it be acted upon before the House adjourns this year.

Mr. Speaker, Iran is the full ticket. It is not just Israel's problem. It constitutes a clear and present danger to regional and global security and must elicit a clear and comprehensive response.

The time has come for Congress and the international community to hold Iran accountable for its destructive behavior. I urge my colleagues to render their strong support for this resolution, but we must do more. We must also pass H.R. 282. It seeks to hold the Iranian regime accountable for its unacceptable behavior and to contain the threat by denying Tehran the resources to engage in its sponsorship of terrorism worldwide, its development of long-range missiles, and chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons, and its repression of the Iranian people.

I urge my colleagues to pass this resolution, but also to pass H.R. 282.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, October 25, 2005.

Hon. Henry J. Hyde,

Chairman, Committee on International Relations, U.S. House of

Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Hyde: I would like to take this opportunity

to respectfully request that H.R. 282 be scheduled for mark-

up by the Committee next month (November 2005).

H.R. 282, seeks to hold the Iranian regime accountable for

its unacceptable behavior and to contain the threat by

denying Tehran the resources to engage in its sponsorship of

terrorism worldwide, its development of longer-range missiles

and chemical, biological, and, possibly, nuclear weapons and

its repression of the Iranian peeople.

General Background

Mr. Chairman, almost three years of negotiations between

the E3-EU countries and the Iranian regime have yet to yield

a permanent suspension of enrichment activities and a

dismantling of Iran's nuclear program. On the contrary Iran,

in August of this year, resumed its nuclear efforts removing

the IAEA seals on the uranium conversion plant at Isfahan

and, in September, Iran began to transfer more of its nuclear

program under military control.

Referral of the Iran case to the UN Security Council,

should that occur, would not necessarily yield any concrete

steps to contain or halt Iran's nuclear pursuits.

Lastly, the E3-EU/Iran negotiations fail to address other

critical issues of great importance to U.S. national security

interests

such as Iran's sponsorship of terrorist activities, including

in Iraq, while H.R. 282 seeks to cover the range of U.S.

policy priorities.

Procedural Background

On April 13, 2005, the Subcommittee on the Middle East and

Central Asia held a mark-up session to consider H.R. 282. The

legislation was amended and adopted by unanimous consent and

forwarded by voice vote to Full Committee for action.

My Subcommittee Staff Director has worked with your staff

on the full Committee to seek input from the Administration,

having met with NSC and State officials on May 25, 2005 and

on June 27, 2005. At the June 27th meeting, a written line

in/line out was promised ``in the next couple of weeks.'' In

mid-July, a deadline of July 22nd was given to the NSC to

provide a line in/line out to the Committee but it was not

met.

On September 28, 2005, I met with , who asked for more

time before calling for a Full Committee mark-up of H.R. 282.

I agreed to wait a few weeks.

It has now been a month since that meeting and the Russian

Federation remains opposed to referral of the Iran case to

the UN Security Council and insists on ``Iran's lawful right

to a peaceful nuclear energy program.'' Further, the position

of the EU now appears to be focused merely on convincing

Tehran to ``resume talks'' and ``resume suspension.''

In the interim, Iran inches closer to crossing the nuclear

threshold.

Status of H.R. 282

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 282 provides critical leverage for the

Administration to use to compel greater action from U.S.

allies who, months ago, were asked by the U.S. to consider

individual sanctions on Iran for its breaches and, instead,

continue their multibillion dollar investments in Iran's

energy sector.

H.R. 282 is in keeping with U.S. efforts to address the

multiple threats posed by the Iranian regime, as well as with

the U.S. strategy to bring freedom and democratic governance

to the people of the Middle East.

H.R. 282 currently enjoys the support of 325 co-sponsors,

including:

Members of the Republican and Democrat Leadership

Three-fourths of the Members of the Committee on

International Relations (22 out of 27 GOP/17 of 23 DEM)

7 Full Committee Chairs and 8 Ranking Members

49 of 65 Members of the Committee on Armed Services

17 of 21 Members of the House Permanent Select Committee on

Intelligence

25 of 34 Members of the Committee on Homeland Security

42 of 66 Members of the Committee on Appropriations

Committee Action Requested

Mr. Chairman, you have exerted Congressional oversight and

the Committee's jurisdiction on a range of important issues

such as the U.S.-India nuclear deal and the amendment to the

Iran Nonproliferation Act, despite Administration concerns.

In that vein, I ask for your assistance and respectfully

request that you immediately schedule H.R. 282--the Iran

Freedom Support Act--for mark-up.

Sincerely,

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen,

Chair, Subcommittee on the

Middle East and Central Asia.

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

Let me first pay tribute to my friends and distinguished colleagues, Chairman Hyde and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) for their powerful and eloquent statements.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. Two days ago the leader of Iran made one of the most repugnant remarks the international community has heard since Adolf Hitler. With his bone- chilling call for Israel to be wiped off the map, the Iranian dictator placed himself and his benighted regime far beyond the pale of the civilized world.

I would hope that everyone in this body would be sickened by the Iranian dictator's contemptible sentiments. And I would hope that every civilized nation is likewise appalled by it, and condemns Iran in the strongest possible terms.

But, Mr. Speaker, this latest outrage from Tehran comes as no surprise. The Iranian leader has made graphically explicit what many of us have long known. Since day one of its existence, the Iranian regime has craved Israel's destruction and has been working assiduously through terrorism and all other means to achieve that goal. Iran's support for terrorist groups that are determined to destroy Israel is well known. Iran is Hezbollah's puppetmaster and increasingly the banker and mentor for Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad as well. And Iran would almost certainly put any nuclear arms it produces or acquires at the service of this nefarious end. All of this should, by now, be clear, even to the most gullible. This has nothing to do with Israel's policies. Tehran simply rejects Israel's right to exist.

Anyone who still does not get the message should read the Iranian Foreign Minister's response to criticism of the Iranian President's remarks yesterday. And I quote, ``The comments expressed by the President is the declared and specific policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran. We don't recognize the Zionist regime and don't consider it legitimate.'' That is what the Iranian Foreign Minister said yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, it is crucial that the United Nations Security Council censure Iran in the strongest terms possible for its leader's disgusting, bellicose statement, and that it insist that

Iran repudiate those statements and halt its support of terrorism.

And it is more urgent than ever that the Security Council take up the issue of preventing Iran's nuclearization and agree on strong sanctions. Let me remind everyone that 4 years ago another powerful Iranian leader, Ali Rafsanjani, openly boasted that Iran would win a nuclear exchange with Israel.

Mr. Speaker, when Hitler threatened to destroy the Jews, almost nobody took him seriously. The appeasers and the pseudosophisticates said it was just rhetoric. But madmen often mean exactly what they say, as we learned only under the most tragic circumstances, and now Iran is declaring its ugly, unthinkable intent for all to hear. And the world is tested yet again.

Mr. Speaker, Iran is guilty of a multitude of sins and assaults on civilization beyond its policy of attempting to delegitimatize the State of Israel. Iran is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. It ceaselessly meddles in Iraq, sowing violence and chaos and undermining that fragile new society's quest for stability and peace, and it is an unapologetic enemy of the United States, as government-sponsored demonstrations all over Iran on this very day make it crystal clear. These are just a few elements of its dangerous behavior, and we shall return to all these concerns on another day.

But Ahmadinejad's inflammatory statement compels us today to focus on Iran's ugly fanaticism-based opposition to Israel's existence and the threat that a nuclear Iran would pose to Israel and to all nations of the Middle East. I know of no situation in the world remotely comparable to this one where a power hell-bent on acquiring nuclear arms declares its determination to wipe one of its neighbors off the map. And in this case, the neighbor that is the object of this vituperation and this murderous intent is the sole democracy in the Middle East and a close ally of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that our resolution will in itself dissuade Iran from its repugnant views or deter it from its planned horrible deeds, but it is morally imperative that we speak out, that we draw attention to a potentially impending nightmare, and that we demand that this time the world take action before it is too late. That is what our resolution does, Mr. Speaker, and that is why I unreservedly support it and urge all of my colleagues to do so.

Just a few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, Reuters reported another megalomaniacal and insane statement by the President of Iran. He said, and I quote, that he stands by his call to wipe Israel off the map. My words are the Iranian nation's words: Westerners are free to comment, but their reactions are invalid, end quote.

All of us in this body should reject, denounce and repudiate the outrageous statements of the leader of Iran and stand up for our friend, the democratic State of Israel.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), a distinguished member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), a distinguished member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend from Texas (Mr. Al Green).

(Mr. AL GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend and distinguished colleague from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my good friend and distinguished colleague from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

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

Mr. Speaker, three generations ago, Adolph Hitler threatened to kill the Jews of Europe. When he made that statement, the gullible, the pseudosophisticates, the appeasers thought that it was only oratory.

Earlier this year we commemorated the liberation of Auschwitz, where a million of those whom Hitler promised to kill were, in fact, destroyed in the gas chambers, in the nightmare of that concentration camp.

We now have a similar statement from an equally deranged but serious leader of a nation. He is calling for the destruction of another 6 million, this time Israelis.

The civilized world must understand that these are not oratorical statements, but plans for action. We need to prevent Iran from ever obtaining nuclear weapons, and we must do everything in our power to have this insane, megalomaniacal regime replaced by a regime of responsibility which would be part of the civilized world.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 520, I call up the conference report on 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 yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring before the House today the conference report on H.R. 2744, which is the Agriculture appropriations bill, which not only covers agriculture, but the Food and Drug Administration and related agencies for fiscal year 2006.

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the good work of the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), my ranking member and good friend, who has contributed greatly to this process. It has been a real pleasure working with her and all the members of the subcommittee in getting to this point today.

I believe we have produced a good, bipartisan conference agreement that does a lot to advance important nutrition, research and rural development programs and still meet our conference allocations on discretionary spending and mandatory spending. My goal this year has been to produce a bipartisan bill, and I believe we have done a good job in reaching that goal.

This conference agreement does have significant increases over fiscal year 2005 for programs that have always enjoyed strong bipartisan support, and they include the following: Agricultural Research Service, $33 million; Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service, $33 million; Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, $7 million; Food Safety and Inspection Service, $21 million; Farm Service Agency, $48 million; Natural Resources Conservation Service, $12 million; Rural Economic and Community Development Programs, $115 million; Domestic Food Programs, $6.5 billion; and the FDA, $40 million.

We have delayed implementation of the country-of-origin labeling for meat, produce and peanuts until 2008. The House voted for delay on COOL while this bill was considered on the floor. There are serious concerns about how this law would be implemented, and this delay gives the Department and the committee of jurisdiction the time to make this policy work.

Mr. Speaker, we refer to this bill as the agriculture bill, but it does far more than assist just basic agriculture. It also supports rural and economic development, human nutrition, agricultural exports, land conservation, as well as food, drug and medical safety. This is a bill that will deliver benefits to every one of our constituents every day, no matter what kind of district you represent.

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

The conference agreement is a bipartisan product with a lot of hard work and input from both sides of the aisle. I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who serve as the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the full Committee on Appropriations. They have been very supportive in moving not only this bill, but other appropriations bills through the Congress as quickly as possible.

I have tried our best to put together a good, solid bill that works for all of America. Much of it is compromise, to be sure, but I believe it is a good compromise and good policy.

In closing, I would also like to thank the subcommittee staff for all of their hard work. None of this could get done without the strong, good commitment, the hard work that this staff puts in day in and day out, sometimes well into the night and covering many weekends: Martin Delgado, the subcommittee clerk; Maureen Holohan, Leslie Barrack, and Jamie Swafford of the majority staff; and Martha Foley on the minority staff. In addition, I want to thank our detailee Tom O'Brien, and a great Texas Aggie, Walt Smith, from my personal staff.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge all of my colleagues to support this conference agreement.

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28OC05.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28OC05.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28OC05.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28OC05.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28OC05.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28OC05.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28OC05.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28OC05.008

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

Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it shall be in order at any time without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House H. Res. 523; the resolution shall be considered as read; the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble to its adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except: (1) 40 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on International Relations; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of the House, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 523) condemning Iranian President Mahmoud Admadinejad's threats against Israel, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, this should be a week in which people around the world consider and celebrate the progress that has been made in interfaith relations in the modern era. We are marking the fact that 40 years ago today, His Holiness Pope Paul VI issued Nostra Aetate, ``In Our Times,'' the landmark declaration of the Roman Catholic Church on its relations with non-Christian religions, in particular Islam and Judaism. That declaration began 4 decades of very important and very helpful dialogue among the world's major faith communities.

In sharp contrast to the spirit of Nostra Aetate, we witnessed on Wednesday a shocking and venomous instance of political and religious intolerance. The President of the Islamic Republic of Iran issued a series of threats against the State of Israel, couched in religious or, perhaps I should say, pseudo-religious terms. President Ahmadinejad said, in essence, that for religious reasons, the State of Israel should be wiped off the map. Evidently, the world has not had enough genocide and ethnic cleansing.

This is not a position shared by most Muslims. Iranians in particular have had enough of the intellectual, economic, and spiritual poverty imposed upon them by their unelected or nominally elected officials.

That poverty will only deepen as Iran finds itself isolated by the sort of rhetoric spouted by President Ahmadinejad.

We can take comfort from the fact that our response of dismay is shared by many in the world community. In particular, the response of Palestinian leader Saeb Erakat is worth noting: ``We have recognized the State of Israel, and we are pursuing a peace process with Israel. And we do not accept the statements of the President of Iran.''

In this resolution, we express our rejection of the statements of the Iranian president and call upon him to repudiate them. Further, we ask the world community to consider whether a government that calls for the elimination of another state should remain in possession of the means to carry out its threats. Israel is entitled to take these threats seriously, as are all other nations, and Iran will have to be prepared to bear the consequences.

I urge the adoption of the resolution and wish to express my appreciation of the leadership shown on this issue by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) and by my colleague from California, our ranking Democrat (Mr. Lantos).

The gentleman from Indiana has an important markup, and so I would like to yield to him briefly at this time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the learned gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentleman from California for his superb support for this important resolution, as well as the other Members who spoke.

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