Summary:

All articles in House section

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
(House of Representatives - July 10, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H5683-H5718] AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 538 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 4461. {time} 1602 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4461) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, with Mr. Nussle in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole House rose on Thursday, June 29, 2000, the bill was open for amendment from page 57, line 12, to page 58, line 8. Are there further amendments to that portion of the bill? Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a series of discussions with the distinguished gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen). Mr. Chairman, as we know, the Senate bill provides direct payments to dairy farmers estimated at $443 million to offset the record low prices we have seen for much of the past year. I would simply ask the chairman if he would be willing to work with me to ensure that direct payments for dairy farmers are included in the bill when it emerges from conference. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to work with the gentleman from Wisconsin. I find that we agree more often than not on the specifics of dairy policy, and would point to the last 2 years of economic assistance payments we have jointly inserted into the agriculture appropriations conference report as proof. Accordingly, I will be pleased to carry out our tradition of working together on dairy producer assistance, when and if we ever get to conference. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. Let me turn to another subject, that of ultrafiltered milk. It seems there is always some new issue popping up in the dairy area. There are growing fears about the damaging impact on domestic dairy producers from imports of dry ultrafiltered or UF milk. Ultrafiltration is an important technology widely used in cheese plants for about 15 years to remove water, lactose, and minerals and allow manufacturers to manipulate the ingredients in cheese to arrive at the desired finished product. The use of liquid UF milk from another location has been approved by FDA on a case-by-case basis, but there is another problem. The problem is the threat of unlimited imports of dry UF milk from places like New Zealand following a petition to FDA earlier this year by the National Cheese Institute to change the standards of identity for cheese. I understand that there are no quotas or tariffs on this product, which is currently used in bakery mixes, ice cream, and other products that do not have the strict standards of identity that cheese has. There have also been newspaper reports suggesting that dry UF milk is already being imported for use in American cheese plants, in violation of FDA regulations. We need to know what the facts are so we can develop an appropriate response. At a minimum, we need to understand first how much UF milk is coming into the country and what it is used for. I would ask the chairman of the subcommittee if he would be willing to work with us to get answers to those questions through the GAO and other sources. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I, too, have an interest in ultrafiltered milk. I believe it is prudent to have empirical facts in order to understand the specifics of a somewhat muddled portion of the dairy production and cheese-making process. I would offer to the gentleman that we will jointly direct either the GAO or the committee S staff to conduct a factual investigation into how much UF milk is produced in this country and how much is being imported and what it is used for. At that time, and with the facts on our side, I am confident that we will be able to address the issue in an intelligent and productive manner. Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman. Now I would like to turn to another subject, Mr. Chairman. That is the Dairy Export Incentive Program. I am concerned that the USDA is not being aggressive enough in encouraging dairy exports through the Dairy Export Incentive Program, or DEIP, which allows us to compete in world markets with highly subsidized exports in the European Union. About 10 percent of DEIP contracts are apparently canceled, I understand due mainly to price undercutting by our competitors. For whatever the reason, we apparently have about 40,000 metric tons of canceled nonfat dry milk contracts dating back to June of 1995. This canceled tonnage can be reprogrammed for export by allowing exporters to rebid for them, but the Foreign Agricultural Service appears reluctant to do that, perhaps fearing that it may be taken to the WTO court by the European Union. Mr. Chairman, as we know, DEIP saves money. It is cheaper to export surplus nonfat dry milk than it is for USDA to buy it and store it. Removing this product from the domestic market would have a beneficial impact on dairy prices. As such, again, I would ask the chair of the subcommittee to help me convince USDA to propose a solution to resolve the problem by the time we have reached conference on this bill, one that might include establishing a procedure for automatic rebidding of canceled tonnage. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, again, I would be pleased to work with the gentleman to address his concerns, as they are shared by myself and many others. It seems the administration has been entirely too willing to roll over to our competitors without looking to the interests of America's farmers and ranchers first, and anything we can do to reverse the trend will be a step forward. Mr. OBEY. I thank the chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise the question of cranberries. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has expired. (By unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was allowed to proceed for 4 additional minutes.) Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, with respect to that product, cranberry growers, as we know, like all farmers today, it seems they are in dire straits due to overproduction, massive overproduction and lower prices. It costs about $35 per barrel to produce cranberries. Some growers in my district are getting as little as $9 or $10 a barrel for their crop. The USDA recently announced its support for industry-proposed volume controls that are desperately needed to get a handle on overproduction. That is part of the solution, but will add to the farm income problems those cranberry growers are facing, so it seems to me we have to look for more things that can be done. Another part of the solution might be for USDA to purchase surplus products. USDA has been very responsive so far looking for opportunities to purchase surplus product, but much more needs to be done if we are to restore balance to supply and demand. [[Page H5684]] As we know, cranberries are among the specialty crops eligible for purchase by the Secretary, with $200 million provided from the recently-passed crop insurance bill. Would the chairman work with me to urge USDA to aggressively use the authority it has to purchase surplus cranberry products in a way that will make a significant difference to the industry? Mr. SKEEN. If the gentleman will yield further, I will be glad to work with the gentleman towards that end. Mr. OBEY. I would also appreciate it if the chairman would also help us to explore the possibility of helping growers through the current difficult times with direct payments. The Cranberry Industry estimates that $20 million will improve income by about $3 to $4 per barrel for each grower. This bill already includes $100 million direct assistance to apple and potato growers. We have helped pork farmers, dairy farmers, wheat, corn, cotton, rice, oilseeds, and many others. Would the chairman of the subcommittee be willing to work with me to ensure that America's cranberry growers receive the same kind of consideration in this respect that many other farmers have received? Mr. SKEEN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, again, I would be very happy to work with the gentleman, as I, too, believe that specialty crops do not receive the support and attention that they deserve. Cranberries would definitely fall into that category. Mr. OBEY. I thank the chairman, and I appreciate his consideration. Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, recently I introduced H.R. 4652, the Quality Cheese Act of 2000. This bipartisan bill would prohibit the FDA from allowing the use of dry ultrafiltered milk in the making of natural cheese. My reason for introducing the bill was simple. Dry ultrafiltered milk, which is a milk derivative, can come in the United States virtually duty-free. It can take the place of domestically produced milk in cheese vats and the consumer cannot tell the difference. Using imported dry ultrafiltered milk would also undercut our domestic dairy farmers' market for their milk. My Wisconsin dairy farmers are already receiving the lowest price for their milk in over 20 years. We cannot allow their market to be further eroded. There have been reports in farm publications that there are large volumes of dry ultrafiltered milk currently being imported. That is perfectly legal, but we do not know what the dry ultrafiltered milk is being used for. If this dry ultrafiltered milk is being used in natural cheese-making, it is being used illegally, to the detriment of consumers and the dairy farmers I represent. It is my hope that the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations, will work with myself and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to find an answer to this important question. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield? Ms. BALDWIN. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, as the gentlewoman knows, I also have an interest in ultrafiltered milk, as I recently discussed with the gentlewoman's colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). I believe it is wise to understand the specifics of a somewhat muddled segment of the dairy production and cheese-making production. Accordingly, we have to agree to jointly direct either the GAO or the subcommittee's S staff to conduct a factual investigation into how much UF milk is produced in this country and how much is being imported and what is it used for, and at that time, with the facts on our side, I am confident that we will be able to address the issue in an intelligent and productive manner. I appreciate the gentlewoman's concerns, and look forward to working with her on behalf of the Nation's dairy industry. Ms. BALDWIN. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Chairman. Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 38 offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio: Page 58, line 4, insert after the colon the following: ``Provided further, That $3,000,000 may be for activities carried out pursuant to section 512 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to new animal drugs, in addition to the amounts otherwise available under this heading for such activities:''. {time} 1615 Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, this amendment concerns antibiotic resistance from the use of antibiotics in livestock. I would like to start with a story. Imagine your 7-year-old daughter is very sick from food poisoning. You take her to the hospital and antibiotics do not help. In a week, she dies a painful death. The autopsy shows that her body is riddled with E. coli bacteria which ate away at her organs from her brain down. This is a true story, and it happened to a family in northeast Ohio 2 years ago. We thought we were winning the war against infectious diseases. With the introduction of antibiotics in the 1940s, humans gained an overwhelming advantage in the fight against bacteria that cause infectious diseases, but the war is not over. Mr. Chairman, 2 weeks ago, the World Health Organization issued a ringing warning against antibiotic resistance. Around the world, microbes are mutating at an alarming rate into the new strains that fail to respond to drugs. Dr. Marcos Esponal of the World Health Organization said, ``we already have lost some of the current good antibiotics, streptomycin for TB; it's almost lost. Chloroquin for malaria, it's lost; penicillin, nobody uses it now; if we keep the same pace, we will be losing other potent and powerful drugs. So a window of opportunity is closing, and I would say if we don't act now, in 5 to 10 years, we will have a major crisis''; words from the World Health Organization. We need to develop, Mr. Chairman, new antibiotics but it is too soon obviously to give up on the ones we have. By using antibiotics and antimicrobials more wisely and more sparingly, we can slow down antibiotic resistance. We need to change the way drugs are given to people to be sure, but we also need to look at the way drugs are given to animals. According to the WHO, 50 percent of all antibiotics are used in agriculture, both for animals and for plants. In the U.S., livestock producers use drugs to treat sick herds and flocks legitimately. They also feed a steady diet of antibiotics for healthy livestock so they will gain weight more quickly and be ready for market sooner. Many of these drugs are the same ones used to treat infections in people, including tetracycline. Prolonged exposure to antibiotics in farm animals provide a breeding ground science tells us for resistance strains of E. coli, salmonella and other bacteria harmful to humans. When transferred to people through food, it can cause dangerous infections. Last week, an interagency task force issued a draft Public Health Action Plan to combat antimicrobial resistance. The plan provides a blueprint for specific, coordinated Federal actions. A top priority action item in the draft plan highlights work already underway at the Food and Drug Administration's Center for Veterinary Medicine. In December of 1998, the FDA issued a proposed framework for evaluating and regulating new animal drugs in light of their contribution to antibiotic resistance in humans. The agency proposes to evaluate the drugs on the basis of their importance in human medicine and the potential exposure of humans to resistant bacteria that come from animals. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would direct $3 million toward the Center for Veterinary Medicine's work on antibiotic resistance related to animal drugs. CVM Director Sundloff has stated that antibiotic resistance is the Center's top priority. However, the framework document states the agency [[Page H5685]] will look first at approvals for new animal drugs and will look at drugs already in use in animals as time and resources permit. We think an additional $3 million would give a significant boost to the ability of the Center for Veterinary Medicine to move forward on antibiotic resistance. Our amendment directs FDA to shift these funds from within the agency, while leaving the decision on the sources of the offset to the agency itself. Please note the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Chairman, has recommended a $53 million budget increase for FDA. Given this increase, we believe the agency can free up $3 million of that increase for its work on antibiotic resistance without harming other programs. Mr. Chairman, I ask for his support, and ask for support of Members of the House for this amendment. The lives of our young children and our elderly parents, the people most vulnerable to food-borne illness, may be at stake. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, it provides an additional $3 million for a particular FDA activity, presumably to be funded at the expense of other FDA priorities. I understand the forthright interest of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) in this situation and what the gentleman wants to do. The committee has fully funded the President's fiscal year 2001 budget request for new animal drug review, as can be seen on page 60 of the committee report on this bill. The President requested $62,761,000 for the animal drugs and feeds program, an increase of $14,048,000 over fiscal year 2000. The committee fully funded the administration's request, which is a generous 22 percent increase. Since the request was fully funded, I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same. Please vote no on the amendment. Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and rise to support the Brown amendment to increase the antibiotic resistance funding by $3 million. Earlier this month, the World Health Organization issued a strong warning against antibiotic resistance. If I may quote from the WHO, they said, ``the world may only have a decade or two to make optimal use of many of the medicines presently available to stop infectious diseases. We are literally in a race against time to bring levels of infectious disease down worldwide before the disease wears the drugs down first''; that is by Mr. David Heymann, executive director of the World Health Organization's communicable disease program. Mr. Chairman, while many factors contribute to antibiotic resistance, an important cause is the overuse of antibiotics in livestock, both for treating disease and promoting faster growth. Many livestock receive a steady diet of antibiotics that are used in human medicine, especially tetracycline and penicillin. Antibiotic-resistant microbes are then transferred from animals to humans primarily in food, causing infection from salmonella and E. coli that are difficult or impossible to treat. Children and the elderly are most at risk for serious illness or death. The World Health Organization recommends reducing antibiotic use in animals to protect our own human health. The Food and Drug Administration's Center for Veterinary Medicine, CVM, is taking steps to reduce the problem of antibiotic resistance from drug use in livestock. The agency's plan primarily addresses new animal drugs and will address drugs currently in use when resources permit. That is where the Brown amendment comes in. This amendment would increase funding for the Food and Drug Administration's Center for Veterinary Medicine by $3 million for activities related to antibiotic resistance. Since the committee is recommending that the FDA receive an increase of $53 million, the Brown amendment would simply direct the agency to allocate an additional $3 million from the $53 million for this very important work. Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, to support the Brown amendment and this very important program. Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in support of the Brown amendment. Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring to the attention of the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) and the body that this certainly has been described as a very serious issue in America today. I appreciate the opposition of the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) to it on the basis of the funding. We do not know exactly where the funding is coming from, and I also understand that this is an issue that was not brought to the attention of the committee or subcommittee prior to today for increased funding. I would like to let the body know that there is some funding in the food safety initiative and the FDA has the jurisdiction, or the responsibility, of looking at these kinds of issues and monitoring this, and we are absolutely not doing a sufficient job. I think that we do need some additional resources and efforts in this area. I would encourage, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) to try to work with us to see if we could not find some additional funding as we move into conference, but I would like to support the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown). The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown). The amendment was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: In addition, mammography user fees authorized by 42 U.S.C. 263(b) may be credited to this account, to remain available until expended. In addition, export certification user fees authorized by 21 U.S.C. 381, as amended, may be credited to this account, to remain available until expended. Buildings and Facilities For plans, construction, repair, improvement, extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities of or used by the Food and Drug Administration, where not otherwise provided, $11,350,000, to remain available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b). INDEPENDENT AGENCIES Commodity Futures Trading Commission For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), including the purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles; the rental of space (to include multiple year leases) in the District of Columbia and elsewhere; and not to exceed $25,000 for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109, $69,000,000, including not to exceed $2,000 for official reception and representation expenses: Provided, That for fiscal year 2001 and thereafter, the Commission is authorized to charge reasonable fees to attendees of Commission sponsored educational events and symposia to cover the Commission's costs of providing those events and symposia, and notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, said fees shall be credited to this account, to be available without further appropriation. Farm Credit Administration Limitation on Administrative Expenses Not to exceed $36,800,000 (from assessments collected from farm credit institutions and from the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation) shall be obligated during the current fiscal year for administrative expenses as authorized under 12 U.S.C. 2249: Provided, That this limitation shall not apply to expenses associated with receiverships. TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. 701. Within the unit limit of cost fixed by law, appropriations and authorizations made for the Department of Agriculture for the current fiscal year under this Act shall be available for the purchase, in addition to those specifically provided for, of not to exceed 389 passenger motor vehicles, of which 385 shall be for replacement only, and for the hire of such vehicles. Sec. 702. Funds in this Act available to the Department of Agriculture shall be available for uniforms or allowances therefor as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902). Sec. 703. Not less than $1,500,000 of the appropriations of the Department of Agriculture in this Act for research and service work authorized by sections 1 and 10 of the Act of June 29, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 427, 427i; commonly known as the Bankhead-Jones Act), subtitle A of title II and section 302 of the Act of August 14, 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq.), and chapter 63 of title 31, United States Code, shall be available for contracting in accordance with such Acts and chapter. Sec. 704. The Secretary may transfer funds provided under this Act and other available unobligated balances of the Department of Agriculture to the Working Capital Fund for the acquisition of plant and capital equipment necessary for the delivery of financial, administrative, and information technology services: Provided, That none of the funds made available by this Act or any other Act shall be transferred to the Working Capital Fund without the prior approval of the agency administrator. Sec. 705. New obligational authority provided for the following appropriation items in this Act shall remain available until expended: Animal and Plant Health Inspection [[Page H5686]] Service, the contingency fund to meet emergency conditions, fruit fly program, integrated systems acquisition project, boll weevil program, up to 10 percent of the screwworm program, and up to $2,000,000 for costs associated with colocating regional offices; Food Safety and Inspection Service, field automation and information management project; funds appropriated for rental payments; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, funds for competitive research grants (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)) and funds for the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund; Farm Service Agency, salaries and expenses funds made available to county committees; Foreign Agricultural Service, middle-income country training program and up to $2,000,000 of the Foreign Agricultural Service appropriation solely for the purpose of offsetting fluctuations in international currency exchange rates, subject to documentation by the Foreign Agricultural Service. Sec. 706. No part of any appropriation contained in this Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein. Sec. 707. Not to exceed $50,000 of the appropriations available to the Department of Agriculture in this Act shall be available to provide appropriate orientation and language training pursuant to section 606C of the Act of August 28, 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1766b; commonly known as the Agricultural Act of 1954). Sec. 708. No funds appropriated by this Act may be used to pay negotiated indirect cost rates on cooperative agreements or similar arrangements between the United States Department of Agriculture and nonprofit institutions in excess of 10 percent of the total direct cost of the agreement when the purpose of such cooperative arrangements is to carry out programs of mutual interest between the two parties. This does not preclude appropriate payment of indirect costs on grants and contracts with such institutions when such indirect costs are computed on a similar basis for all agencies for which appropriations are provided in this Act. Sec. 709. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, commodities acquired by the Department in connection with the Commodity Credit Corporation and section 32 price support operations may be used, as authorized by law (15 U.S.C. 714c and 7 U.S.C. 612c), to provide commodities to individuals in cases of hardship as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture. Sec. 710. None of the funds in this Act shall be available to restrict the authority of the Commodity Credit Corporation to lease space for its own use or to lease space on behalf of other agencies of the Department of Agriculture when such space will be jointly occupied. Sec. 711. None of the funds in this Act shall be available to pay indirect costs charged against competitive agricultural research, education, or extension grant awards issued by the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service that exceed 19 percent of total Federal funds provided under each award: Provided, That notwithstanding section 1462 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3310), funds provided by this Act for grants awarded competitively by the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service shall be available to pay full allowable indirect costs for each grant awarded under section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638). Sec. 712. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, all loan levels provided in this Act shall be considered estimates, not limitations. Sec. 713. Appropriations to the Department of Agriculture for the cost of direct and guaranteed loans made available in the current fiscal year shall remain available until expended to cover obligations made in the current fiscal year for the following accounts: the rural development loan fund program account; the rural telephone bank program account; the rural electrification and telecommunications loans program account; the rural housing insurance fund program account; and the rural economic development loans program account. Sec. 714. Such sums as may be necessary for the current fiscal year pay raises for programs funded by this Act shall be absorbed within the levels appropriated by this Act. Sec. 715. Notwithstanding chapter 63 of title 31, United States Code, marketing services of the Agricultural Marketing Service; the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration; the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; and the food safety activities of the Food Safety and Inspection Service may use cooperative agreements to reflect a relationship between the Agricultural Marketing Service; the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration; the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; or the Food Safety and Inspection Service and a State or Cooperator to carry out agricultural marketing programs, to carry out programs to protect the Nation's animal and plant resources, or to carry out educational programs or special studies to improve the safety of the Nation's food supply. Sec. 716. Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including provisions of law requiring competition), the Secretary of Agriculture may hereafter enter into cooperative agreements (which may provide for the acquisition of goods or services, including personal services) with a State, political subdivision, or agency thereof, a public or private agency, organization, or any other person, if the Secretary determines that the objectives of the agreement will: (1) serve a mutual interest of the parties to the agreement in carrying out the programs administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service; and (2) all parties will contribute resources to the accomplishment of these objectives: Provided, That Commodity Credit Corporation funds obligated for such purposes shall not exceed the level obligated by the Commodity Credit Corporation for such purposes in fiscal year 1998. Sec. 717. None of the funds in this Act may be used to retire more than 5 percent of the Class A stock of the Rural Telephone Bank or to maintain any account or subaccount within the accounting records of the Rural Telephone Bank the creation of which has not specifically been authorized by statute: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this Act may be used to transfer to the Treasury or to the Federal Financing Bank any unobligated balance of the Rural Telephone Bank telephone liquidating account which is in excess of current requirements and such balance shall receive interest as set forth for financial accounts in section 505(c) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990. Sec. 718. Of the funds made available by this Act, not more than $1,500,000 shall be used to cover necessary expenses of activities related to all advisory committees, panels, commissions, and task forces of the Department of Agriculture, except for panels used to comply with negotiated rule makings and panels used to evaluate competitively awarded grants. Sec. 719. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used to carry out section 410 of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 679a) or section 30 of the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 471). Sec. 720. No employee of the Department of Agriculture may be detailed or assigned from an agency or office funded by this Act to any other agency or office of the Department for more than 30 days unless the individual's employing agency or office is fully reimbursed by the receiving agency or office for the salary and expenses of the employee for the period of assignment. Sec. 721. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Agriculture shall be used to transmit or otherwise make available to any non-Department of Agriculture employee questions or responses to questions that are a result of information requested for the appropriations hearing process. Sec. 722. None of the funds made available to the Department of Agriculture by this Act may be used to acquire new information technology systems or significant upgrades, as determined by the Office of the Chief Information Officer, without the approval of the Chief Information Officer and the concurrence of the Executive Information Technology Investment Review Board: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be transferred to the Office of the Chief Information Officer without the prior approval of the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress. Sec. 723. (a) None of the funds provided by this Act, or provided by previous Appropriations Acts to the agencies funded by this Act that remain available for obligation or expenditure in the current fiscal year, or provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the collection of fees available to the agencies funded by this Act, shall be available for obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of funds which: (1) creates new programs; (2) eliminates a program, project, or activity; (3) increases funds or personnel by any means for any project or activity for which funds have been denied or restricted; (4) relocates an office or employees; (5) reorganizes offices, programs, or activities; or (6) contracts out or privatizes any functions or activities presently performed by Federal employees; unless the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress are notified 15 days in advance of such reprogramming of funds. (b) None of the funds provided by this Act, or provided by previous Appropriations Acts to the agencies funded by this Act that remain available for obligation or expenditure in the current fiscal year, or provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the collection of fees available to the agencies funded by this Act, shall be available for obligation or expenditure for activities, programs, or projects through a reprogramming of funds in excess of $500,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, that: (1) augments existing programs, projects, or activities; (2) reduces by 10 percent funding for any existing program, project, or activity, or numbers of personnel by 10 percent as approved by Congress; or (3) results from any general savings from a reduction in personnel which would result in a change in existing programs, activities, or projects as approved by Congress; unless the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress are notified 15 days in advance of such reprogramming of funds. Sec. 724. With the exception of funds needed to administer and conduct oversight of grants awarded and obligations incurred prior to enactment of this Act, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other Act may be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out section 793 of Public Law 104-127, the Fund for Rural America (7 U.S.C. 2204f). [[Page H5687]] Sec. 725. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel who carry out an environmental quality incentives program authorized by chapter 4 of subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa et seq.) in excess of $174,000,000. Sec. 726. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise available to the Department of Agriculture in the current fiscal year or thereafter may be used to administer the provision of contract payments to a producer under the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.) for contract acreage on which wild rice is planted unless the contract payment is reduced by an acre for each contract acre planted to wild rice. Sec. 727. With the exception of funds needed to administer and conduct oversight of grants awarded and obligations incurred prior to enactment of this Act, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other Act may be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out the provisions of section 401 of Public Law 105- 185, the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems (7 U.S.C. 7621). Sec. 728. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act shall be used to carry out any commodity purchase program that would prohibit eligibility or participation by farmer-owned cooperatives. Sec. 729. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out a conservation farm option program, as authorized by section 1240M of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839bb). Sec. 730. None of the funds made available by this Act or any other Act for any fiscal year may be used to carry out section 203(h) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1622(h)) unless the Secretary of Agriculture inspects and certifies agricultural processing equipment, and imposes a fee for the inspection and certification, in a manner that is similar to the inspection and certification of agricultural products under that section, as determined by the Secretary: Provided, That this provision shall not affect the authority of the Secretary to carry out the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.), or the Egg Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 1031 et seq.). Sec. 731. None of the funds appropriated by this Act or any other Act shall be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel who prepare or submit appropriations language as part of the President's Budget submission to the Congress of the United States for programs under the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Subcommittees on Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies that assumes revenues or reflects a reduction from the previous year due to user fees proposals that have not been enacted into law prior to the submission of the Budget unless such Budget submission identifies which additional spending reductions should occur in the event the user fees proposals are not enacted prior to the date of the convening of a committee of conference for the fiscal year 2002 appropriations Act. Sec. 732. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act shall be used to carry out a Community Food Security program or any similar activity within the United States Department of Agriculture without the prior approval of the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress. Sec. 733. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other Act may be used to carry out provision of section 612 of Public Law 105-185. Mr. SKEEN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of title VII through page 72, line 4 be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Mexico? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to this portion of the bill? If not, the Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: Sec. 734. Hereafter no funds shall be used for the Kyoto Protocol, including such Kyoto mechanisms as carbon emissions trading schemes and the Clean Development Mechanism that are found solely in the Kyoto Protocol and nowhere in the laws of the United States. Amendment No. 58 Offered by Mr. Knollenberg Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 58 offered by Mr. Knollenberg: Page 72, line 5, strike Section 734 and Insert as Section 734: None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be used to propose or issue rules, regulations, decrees, or orders for the purpose of implementation, or in preparation for implementation, of the Kyoto Protocol which was adopted on December 11, 1997, in Kyoto, Japan, at the Third Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which has not been submitted to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification pursuant to article II, section 2, clause 2, of the United States Constitution, and which has not entered into force pursuant to article 25 of the Protocol; Provided further, the limitation established in this section not apply to any activity otherwise authorized by law. Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I want to state at the outset that this amendment makes the language for this Agriculture Appropriations bill, H.R. 4461, exactly the same, word-for-word, as the language in the energy and water appropriations bill, the same, word-for-word, that will be in the foreign operations bill that will come before this body this week. This language passed by voice vote with no opposition in about 1 minute just a few days ago. I would like to make four quick key points that are actually directed in this amendment. Number one, no agency can proceed with activities that are not specifically authorized and funded. Number two, no new authority is granted. Number three, neither the United Nations framework convention on climate control, nor the Kyoto Protocol are self-executing and specific implementing legislation is required for any regulation, program or initiative. Number four, since the Kyoto Protocol has not ratified and implementing legislation has not been approved by Congress, nothing contained exclusively in that treaty is funded. Mr. Chairman, I just want to urge all Members to support what is a bipartisan supported amendment, and it has been our effort to strengthen through clarification and offer consistently in all of these bills and we think that is the proper approach, it simplifies things, clarifies things and I think strengthens things. Mr. Chairman, in the morning two days ago, the House Appropriations Committee accepted my amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. That afternoon an amendment that the gentleman from Indiana Mr. Visclosky offered on the Energy and Water Appropriations bill was exactly the same wording as what I offered and what was accepted in the full House Appropriations Committee. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that this amendment regarding the Kyoto Protocol offered by me and then Mr. Visclosky and now again by me cannot, under the Rules of the House of Representatives, authorize anything whatsoever on this Agriculture Appropriations bill, H.R. 106- 4461, lest it be subject to a point of order. This amendment shall not go beyond clarification and recognition of the original and enduring meaning of the law that has existed for years now--specifically that no funds be spent on unauthorized activities for the fatally flawed and unratified Kyoto Protocol. Mr. Chairman, the whole nation deserves to hear the plea of this Administration for clarification of the Kyoto Protocol funding limitation. The plea came from the coordinator of all environmental policy for this Administration, George Frampton, in his position as Acting Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality. On March 1, 2000, on behalf of the Administration he stated before the VA/HUD appropriations subcommittee, and I quote, ``Just to finish our dialogue here [about the Kyoto Protocol funding limitation], my point was that it is the very uncertainty about the scope of the language . . . that gives rise to our wanting to not have the continuation of this uncertainty created next year.'' Mr. Chairman, I agree with Mr. Obey when he stated to the Administration, ``You're nuts!'' upon learning of the fatally flawed Kyoto Protocol that Vice President Gore negotiated. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Congress for the focus on the activities of this Administration, both authorized and unauthorized. This amendment shall be read to be a clarification that is fully consistent with the provision that has been signed by President Clinton in six current appropriations laws. A few key points must be reviewed: First, no agency can proceed with activities that are not specifically authorized and funded. Mr. Chairman, there has been an effort to confuse the long-standing support that I as well as other strong supporters of the provision on the Kyoto Protocol have regarding important energy supply and energy conservation program. For example, there has never been a question about strong support for voluntary programs, development of clean coal technology, and improvements in energy conservation for all sectors of our economy. Notwithstanding arguments that have been made on the floor in recent days, I have never, ever tried to undermine, eliminate, delete, or delay any programs that have been specifically authorized and funded. Second, no new authority is granted. [[Page H5688]] Third, since neither the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change nor the Kyoto Protocol are self executing, specific implementing legislation is required for any regulation, program, or initiative. Fourth, since the Kyoto Protocol has not been ratified and implementing legislation has not been approved by Congress, nothing contained exclusively in that treaty is funded. Mr. Chairman, as you know, the Administration negotiated the Kyoto Climate Change Protocol some time ago but has decided not to submit this treaty to the United States Senate for ratification. All indications from this Administration lead to the conclusion that they have no intention of ever submitting the Kyoto Protocol to the Senate. Pursuant to Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, the President only has the power to make treaties ``by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.'' It is therefore unconstitutional for the President to make a treaty in contravention of the Advice of the Senate. The unanimous (95-0) advice of the Senate was given in Senate Resolution 105-98, referred to as the Byrd-Hagel Resolution. Likewise it is therefore unconstitutional for the President to make a treaty with no intention of ever seeking the consent of the Senate. The Protocol places severe restrictions on the United States while exempting most countries, including China, India, Mexico, and Brazil, from taking measures to reduce carbon dioxide equivalent emissions. The Administration undertook this course of action despite unanimous support in the United States Senate for the Senate's advice in the form of the Byrd-Hagel resolution calling for commitments by all nations and on the condition that the Protocol not adversely impact the economy of the United States. We are also concerned that actions taken by Federal agencies constitute the implementation of this treaty before its submission to Congress as required by the Constitution of the United States. Clearly, Congress cannot allow any agency to attempt to interpret current law to avoid constitutional due process. Clearly, we would not need this debate if the Administration would send the treaty to the Senate. The treaty would be disposed of and we could return to a more productive process for addressing our energy future. During numerous hearings on this issue, the administration has not been willing to engage in this debate. For example, it took months to extract the documents the administration used for its flawed economics. The message is clear--there is no interest in sharing with the American public the real price tag of this policy. A balanced public debate will be required because there is much to be learned about the issue before we commit this country to unprecedented curbs on energy use while most of the world is exempt. Worse yet, some treaty supporters see this as only a first step to elimination of fossil energy production. Unfortunately, the Administration has chosen to keep this issue out of the current debate. I look forward to working to assure that the administration and EPA understand the boundaries of the current law. It will be up to Congress to assure that backdoor implementation of the Kyoto Protocol does not occur. In that regard I would like to include in the Record a letter with legislative history of the Clean Air Act reported by Congressman John Dingell who was the Chairman of the House Conference on the Clearn Air Act amendments of 1990. No one knows the Clean Air Act like Congressman Dingell. He makes clear, and I quote, ``Congress has not enacted implementing legislation authorizing EPA or any other agency to regulate greenhouse gases.'' In closing, I look forward to the report language to clarify what activities are and are not authorized. Mr. Chairman, I include the following letter for the Record: October 5, 1999. Hon. David M. McIntosh, Chairman, Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs, Committee on Government Reform, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that you have asked, based on discussions between our staffs, about the disposition by the House-Senate conferees of the amendments in 1990 to the Clean Air Act (CAA) regarding greenhouse gases such as methane and carbon dioxide. In making this inquiry, you call my attention to an April 10, 1998 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) memorandum entitled `EPA's Authority to Regulate Pollutants Emitted by Electric Power Generation Sources' and an October 12, 1998 memorandum entitled `The Authority of EPA to Regulate Carbon Dioxide Under the Clean Air Act' prepared for the National Mining Association. The latter memorandum discusses the legislative history of the 1990 amendments. First, the House-passed bill (H.R. 3030) never included any provision regarding the regulation of any greenhouse gas, such as methane or carbon dioxide, nor did the bill address global climate change. The House, however, did include provisions aimed at implementing the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Second, as to the Senate version (S. 1630) of the proposed amendments, the October 12, 1998 memorandum correctly points out that the Senate did address greenhouse gas matters and global warming, along with provisions implementing the Montreal Protocol. Nevertheless, only Montreal Protocol related provisions were agreed to by the House-Senate conferees (see Conf. Rept. 101-952, Oct. 26, 1990). However, I should point out that Public Law 101-549 of November 15, 1990, which contains the 1990 amendments to the CAA, includes some provisions, such as sections 813, 817 and 819-821, that were enacted as free-standing provisions separate from the CAA. Although the Public Law often refers to the `Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,' the Public Law does not specify that reference as the `short title' of all of the provisions included the Public Law. One of these free-standing provisions, section 821, entitled `Information Gathering on Greenhouse Gases contributing to Global Climate Change' appears in the United States code as a `note' (at 42 U.S.C. 7651k). It requires regulations by the EPA to `monitor carbon dioxide emissions' from `all affected sources subject to title V' of the CAA and specifies that the emissions are to be reported to the EPA. That section does not designate carbon dioxide as a `pollutant' for any purpose. Finally, Title IX of the Conference Report, entitled `Clean Air Research,' was primarily negotiated at the time by the House and Senate Science Committees, which had no regulatory jurisdiction under House-Senate Rules. This title amended section 103 of the CAA by adding new subsections (c) through (k). New subsection (g), entitled `Pollution Prevention and Control,' calls for `non-regulatory strategies and technologies for air pollution prevention.' While it refers, as noted in the EPA memorandum, to carbon dioxide as a `pollutant,' House and Senate conferees never agreed to designate carbon dioxide as a pollutant for regulatory or other purposes. Based on my review of this history and my recollection of the discussions, I would have difficulty concluding that the House-Senate conferees, who rejected the Senate regulatory provisions (with the exception of the above-referenced section 821), contemplated regulating greenhouse gas emissions or addressing global warming under the Clean Air Act. Shortly after enactment of Public Law 101-549, the United Nations General Assembly established in December 1990 the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee that ultimately led to the Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was ratified by the United States after advice and consent by the Senate. That Convention is, of course, not self-executing, and the Congress has not enacted implementing legislation authorizing EPA or any other agency to regulate greenhouse gases. I hope that this is responsive. With best wishes, Sincerely, John D. Dingell, Ranking Member. Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Knollenberg amendment. His characterization of the language is absolutely correct. It is the same as energy and water, it is the same as full committee has reported for foreign operations and essentially the same intent as Veterans Administration, HUD and Urban Development as well. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate his work in a bipartisan fashion and, again, I agree with the premise of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), Kyoto is not the law of the land, but we want to ensure that where we have authorized programs and where there is duplicate language that the law can also be followed. I do appreciate the initiative of the gentleman and would ask my colleagues to support his amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg). The amendment was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: Sec. 735. After taking any action involving the seizure, quarantine, treatment, destruction, or disposal of wheat infested with karnal bunt, the Secretary of Agriculture shall compensate the producers and handlers for economic losses incurred as the result of the action not later than 45 days after receipt of a claim that includes all appropriate paperwork. Sec. 736. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Town of Lloyd, New York and the Town of Harris, New York shall be eligible for loans and grants provided through the Rural Community Advancement Program. {time} 1630 Amendment No. 56 Offered by Mr. Boyd Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. [[Page H5689]] The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 56 offered by Mr. Boyd: Page 72, lines 18 and 19, strike ``Town of Harris'' and insert ``Town of Thompson''. Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure that we have the amendment correct. It should be the amendment that changes the ``Town of Harris'' to the ``Town of Thompson.'' The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida is correct. Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, it is a technical amendment. I ask support for the amendment. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I accept the gentleman's amendment and recommend that the House do so as well. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd). The amendment was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read: The Clerk read as follows: Sec. 737. Hereafter, notwithstanding section 502(h)(7) of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1472(h)(7)), the fee collected by the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to a guaranteed loan under such section 502(h) at the time of the issuance of such guarantee may be in an amount equal to not more than 2 percent of the principal obligation of the loan. Sec. 738. The Secretary of Agriculture may use funds available under this and subsequent appropriation Acts to employ individuals to perform services outside the United States as determined by the agencies to be necessary or appropriate for carrying out programs and activities abroad; and such employment actions, hereafter referred to as Personal Service Agreements (PSA), are authorized to be negotiated, the terms of the PSA to be prescribed and work to be performed, where necessary, without regard to such statutory provisions as related to the negotiation, making and performance of contracts and performance of work in the United States. Individuals employed under a PSA to perform such services outside the United States shall not by virtue of such employment be considered employees of the United States Government for purposes of any law administered by the Office of Personnel Management. Such individuals may be considered employees within the meaning of the Federal Employee Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. 8101 et seq. Further, that Government service credit shall be accrued for the time employed under a PSA should the individual later be hired into a permanent U.S. Government position within FAS or another U.S. Government agency if their authorities so permit. Sec. 739. (a) In General.--Section 141 of the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7251) is amended-- (1) in subsection (b)(4), by striking ``and 2000''; and inserting ``through 2001''; and (2) in subsection (h), by striking ``2000'' each place it appears and inserting ``2001''. (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 142(e) of the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7252(e)) is amended by striking ``2001'' and inserting ``2002''. Sec. 740. In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated or made available by this Act, $4,000,000 is appropriated for the purpose of providing Bill Emerson and Mickey Leland Hunger Fellowships through the Congressional Hunger Center. Sec. 741. Notwithstanding section 718, title VII of Public Law 105-277, as amended, funds made available hereafter in annual appropriations acts may be used to provide market access program assistance pursuant to section 203 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978, as amended (7 U.S.C. 5623), to any agricultural commodity as defined in section 102 of the Agriculture Trade Act of 1978, as amended (7 U.S.C. 5602), except for products specifically excluded by section 1302, title I of Public Law 103-66, as amended, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. Point of Order Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order on this section restoring the eligibility of mink for MAP funds. The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members who wish to be heard on the point of order that this section constitutes legislation? The Chair finds, that this provision explicitly supersedes existing law in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained, and the provision is stricken from the bill. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as f

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
(House of Representatives - July 10, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H5683-H5718] AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 538 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 4461. {time} 1602 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4461) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, with Mr. Nussle in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole House rose on Thursday, June 29, 2000, the bill was open for amendment from page 57, line 12, to page 58, line 8. Are there further amendments to that portion of the bill? Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a series of discussions with the distinguished gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen). Mr. Chairman, as we know, the Senate bill provides direct payments to dairy farmers estimated at $443 million to offset the record low prices we have seen for much of the past year. I would simply ask the chairman if he would be willing to work with me to ensure that direct payments for dairy farmers are included in the bill when it emerges from conference. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to work with the gentleman from Wisconsin. I find that we agree more often than not on the specifics of dairy policy, and would point to the last 2 years of economic assistance payments we have jointly inserted into the agriculture appropriations conference report as proof. Accordingly, I will be pleased to carry out our tradition of working together on dairy producer assistance, when and if we ever get to conference. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. Let me turn to another subject, that of ultrafiltered milk. It seems there is always some new issue popping up in the dairy area. There are growing fears about the damaging impact on domestic dairy producers from imports of dry ultrafiltered or UF milk. Ultrafiltration is an important technology widely used in cheese plants for about 15 years to remove water, lactose, and minerals and allow manufacturers to manipulate the ingredients in cheese to arrive at the desired finished product. The use of liquid UF milk from another location has been approved by FDA on a case-by-case basis, but there is another problem. The problem is the threat of unlimited imports of dry UF milk from places like New Zealand following a petition to FDA earlier this year by the National Cheese Institute to change the standards of identity for cheese. I understand that there are no quotas or tariffs on this product, which is currently used in bakery mixes, ice cream, and other products that do not have the strict standards of identity that cheese has. There have also been newspaper reports suggesting that dry UF milk is already being imported for use in American cheese plants, in violation of FDA regulations. We need to know what the facts are so we can develop an appropriate response. At a minimum, we need to understand first how much UF milk is coming into the country and what it is used for. I would ask the chairman of the subcommittee if he would be willing to work with us to get answers to those questions through the GAO and other sources. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I, too, have an interest in ultrafiltered milk. I believe it is prudent to have empirical facts in order to understand the specifics of a somewhat muddled portion of the dairy production and cheese-making process. I would offer to the gentleman that we will jointly direct either the GAO or the committee S staff to conduct a factual investigation into how much UF milk is produced in this country and how much is being imported and what it is used for. At that time, and with the facts on our side, I am confident that we will be able to address the issue in an intelligent and productive manner. Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman. Now I would like to turn to another subject, Mr. Chairman. That is the Dairy Export Incentive Program. I am concerned that the USDA is not being aggressive enough in encouraging dairy exports through the Dairy Export Incentive Program, or DEIP, which allows us to compete in world markets with highly subsidized exports in the European Union. About 10 percent of DEIP contracts are apparently canceled, I understand due mainly to price undercutting by our competitors. For whatever the reason, we apparently have about 40,000 metric tons of canceled nonfat dry milk contracts dating back to June of 1995. This canceled tonnage can be reprogrammed for export by allowing exporters to rebid for them, but the Foreign Agricultural Service appears reluctant to do that, perhaps fearing that it may be taken to the WTO court by the European Union. Mr. Chairman, as we know, DEIP saves money. It is cheaper to export surplus nonfat dry milk than it is for USDA to buy it and store it. Removing this product from the domestic market would have a beneficial impact on dairy prices. As such, again, I would ask the chair of the subcommittee to help me convince USDA to propose a solution to resolve the problem by the time we have reached conference on this bill, one that might include establishing a procedure for automatic rebidding of canceled tonnage. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, again, I would be pleased to work with the gentleman to address his concerns, as they are shared by myself and many others. It seems the administration has been entirely too willing to roll over to our competitors without looking to the interests of America's farmers and ranchers first, and anything we can do to reverse the trend will be a step forward. Mr. OBEY. I thank the chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise the question of cranberries. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has expired. (By unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was allowed to proceed for 4 additional minutes.) Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, with respect to that product, cranberry growers, as we know, like all farmers today, it seems they are in dire straits due to overproduction, massive overproduction and lower prices. It costs about $35 per barrel to produce cranberries. Some growers in my district are getting as little as $9 or $10 a barrel for their crop. The USDA recently announced its support for industry-proposed volume controls that are desperately needed to get a handle on overproduction. That is part of the solution, but will add to the farm income problems those cranberry growers are facing, so it seems to me we have to look for more things that can be done. Another part of the solution might be for USDA to purchase surplus products. USDA has been very responsive so far looking for opportunities to purchase surplus product, but much more needs to be done if we are to restore balance to supply and demand. [[Page H5684]] As we know, cranberries are among the specialty crops eligible for purchase by the Secretary, with $200 million provided from the recently-passed crop insurance bill. Would the chairman work with me to urge USDA to aggressively use the authority it has to purchase surplus cranberry products in a way that will make a significant difference to the industry? Mr. SKEEN. If the gentleman will yield further, I will be glad to work with the gentleman towards that end. Mr. OBEY. I would also appreciate it if the chairman would also help us to explore the possibility of helping growers through the current difficult times with direct payments. The Cranberry Industry estimates that $20 million will improve income by about $3 to $4 per barrel for each grower. This bill already includes $100 million direct assistance to apple and potato growers. We have helped pork farmers, dairy farmers, wheat, corn, cotton, rice, oilseeds, and many others. Would the chairman of the subcommittee be willing to work with me to ensure that America's cranberry growers receive the same kind of consideration in this respect that many other farmers have received? Mr. SKEEN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, again, I would be very happy to work with the gentleman, as I, too, believe that specialty crops do not receive the support and attention that they deserve. Cranberries would definitely fall into that category. Mr. OBEY. I thank the chairman, and I appreciate his consideration. Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, recently I introduced H.R. 4652, the Quality Cheese Act of 2000. This bipartisan bill would prohibit the FDA from allowing the use of dry ultrafiltered milk in the making of natural cheese. My reason for introducing the bill was simple. Dry ultrafiltered milk, which is a milk derivative, can come in the United States virtually duty-free. It can take the place of domestically produced milk in cheese vats and the consumer cannot tell the difference. Using imported dry ultrafiltered milk would also undercut our domestic dairy farmers' market for their milk. My Wisconsin dairy farmers are already receiving the lowest price for their milk in over 20 years. We cannot allow their market to be further eroded. There have been reports in farm publications that there are large volumes of dry ultrafiltered milk currently being imported. That is perfectly legal, but we do not know what the dry ultrafiltered milk is being used for. If this dry ultrafiltered milk is being used in natural cheese-making, it is being used illegally, to the detriment of consumers and the dairy farmers I represent. It is my hope that the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations, will work with myself and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to find an answer to this important question. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield? Ms. BALDWIN. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, as the gentlewoman knows, I also have an interest in ultrafiltered milk, as I recently discussed with the gentlewoman's colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). I believe it is wise to understand the specifics of a somewhat muddled segment of the dairy production and cheese-making production. Accordingly, we have to agree to jointly direct either the GAO or the subcommittee's S staff to conduct a factual investigation into how much UF milk is produced in this country and how much is being imported and what is it used for, and at that time, with the facts on our side, I am confident that we will be able to address the issue in an intelligent and productive manner. I appreciate the gentlewoman's concerns, and look forward to working with her on behalf of the Nation's dairy industry. Ms. BALDWIN. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Chairman. Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 38 offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio: Page 58, line 4, insert after the colon the following: ``Provided further, That $3,000,000 may be for activities carried out pursuant to section 512 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to new animal drugs, in addition to the amounts otherwise available under this heading for such activities:''. {time} 1615 Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, this amendment concerns antibiotic resistance from the use of antibiotics in livestock. I would like to start with a story. Imagine your 7-year-old daughter is very sick from food poisoning. You take her to the hospital and antibiotics do not help. In a week, she dies a painful death. The autopsy shows that her body is riddled with E. coli bacteria which ate away at her organs from her brain down. This is a true story, and it happened to a family in northeast Ohio 2 years ago. We thought we were winning the war against infectious diseases. With the introduction of antibiotics in the 1940s, humans gained an overwhelming advantage in the fight against bacteria that cause infectious diseases, but the war is not over. Mr. Chairman, 2 weeks ago, the World Health Organization issued a ringing warning against antibiotic resistance. Around the world, microbes are mutating at an alarming rate into the new strains that fail to respond to drugs. Dr. Marcos Esponal of the World Health Organization said, ``we already have lost some of the current good antibiotics, streptomycin for TB; it's almost lost. Chloroquin for malaria, it's lost; penicillin, nobody uses it now; if we keep the same pace, we will be losing other potent and powerful drugs. So a window of opportunity is closing, and I would say if we don't act now, in 5 to 10 years, we will have a major crisis''; words from the World Health Organization. We need to develop, Mr. Chairman, new antibiotics but it is too soon obviously to give up on the ones we have. By using antibiotics and antimicrobials more wisely and more sparingly, we can slow down antibiotic resistance. We need to change the way drugs are given to people to be sure, but we also need to look at the way drugs are given to animals. According to the WHO, 50 percent of all antibiotics are used in agriculture, both for animals and for plants. In the U.S., livestock producers use drugs to treat sick herds and flocks legitimately. They also feed a steady diet of antibiotics for healthy livestock so they will gain weight more quickly and be ready for market sooner. Many of these drugs are the same ones used to treat infections in people, including tetracycline. Prolonged exposure to antibiotics in farm animals provide a breeding ground science tells us for resistance strains of E. coli, salmonella and other bacteria harmful to humans. When transferred to people through food, it can cause dangerous infections. Last week, an interagency task force issued a draft Public Health Action Plan to combat antimicrobial resistance. The plan provides a blueprint for specific, coordinated Federal actions. A top priority action item in the draft plan highlights work already underway at the Food and Drug Administration's Center for Veterinary Medicine. In December of 1998, the FDA issued a proposed framework for evaluating and regulating new animal drugs in light of their contribution to antibiotic resistance in humans. The agency proposes to evaluate the drugs on the basis of their importance in human medicine and the potential exposure of humans to resistant bacteria that come from animals. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would direct $3 million toward the Center for Veterinary Medicine's work on antibiotic resistance related to animal drugs. CVM Director Sundloff has stated that antibiotic resistance is the Center's top priority. However, the framework document states the agency [[Page H5685]] will look first at approvals for new animal drugs and will look at drugs already in use in animals as time and resources permit. We think an additional $3 million would give a significant boost to the ability of the Center for Veterinary Medicine to move forward on antibiotic resistance. Our amendment directs FDA to shift these funds from within the agency, while leaving the decision on the sources of the offset to the agency itself. Please note the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Chairman, has recommended a $53 million budget increase for FDA. Given this increase, we believe the agency can free up $3 million of that increase for its work on antibiotic resistance without harming other programs. Mr. Chairman, I ask for his support, and ask for support of Members of the House for this amendment. The lives of our young children and our elderly parents, the people most vulnerable to food-borne illness, may be at stake. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, it provides an additional $3 million for a particular FDA activity, presumably to be funded at the expense of other FDA priorities. I understand the forthright interest of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) in this situation and what the gentleman wants to do. The committee has fully funded the President's fiscal year 2001 budget request for new animal drug review, as can be seen on page 60 of the committee report on this bill. The President requested $62,761,000 for the animal drugs and feeds program, an increase of $14,048,000 over fiscal year 2000. The committee fully funded the administration's request, which is a generous 22 percent increase. Since the request was fully funded, I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same. Please vote no on the amendment. Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and rise to support the Brown amendment to increase the antibiotic resistance funding by $3 million. Earlier this month, the World Health Organization issued a strong warning against antibiotic resistance. If I may quote from the WHO, they said, ``the world may only have a decade or two to make optimal use of many of the medicines presently available to stop infectious diseases. We are literally in a race against time to bring levels of infectious disease down worldwide before the disease wears the drugs down first''; that is by Mr. David Heymann, executive director of the World Health Organization's communicable disease program. Mr. Chairman, while many factors contribute to antibiotic resistance, an important cause is the overuse of antibiotics in livestock, both for treating disease and promoting faster growth. Many livestock receive a steady diet of antibiotics that are used in human medicine, especially tetracycline and penicillin. Antibiotic-resistant microbes are then transferred from animals to humans primarily in food, causing infection from salmonella and E. coli that are difficult or impossible to treat. Children and the elderly are most at risk for serious illness or death. The World Health Organization recommends reducing antibiotic use in animals to protect our own human health. The Food and Drug Administration's Center for Veterinary Medicine, CVM, is taking steps to reduce the problem of antibiotic resistance from drug use in livestock. The agency's plan primarily addresses new animal drugs and will address drugs currently in use when resources permit. That is where the Brown amendment comes in. This amendment would increase funding for the Food and Drug Administration's Center for Veterinary Medicine by $3 million for activities related to antibiotic resistance. Since the committee is recommending that the FDA receive an increase of $53 million, the Brown amendment would simply direct the agency to allocate an additional $3 million from the $53 million for this very important work. Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, to support the Brown amendment and this very important program. Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in support of the Brown amendment. Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring to the attention of the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) and the body that this certainly has been described as a very serious issue in America today. I appreciate the opposition of the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) to it on the basis of the funding. We do not know exactly where the funding is coming from, and I also understand that this is an issue that was not brought to the attention of the committee or subcommittee prior to today for increased funding. I would like to let the body know that there is some funding in the food safety initiative and the FDA has the jurisdiction, or the responsibility, of looking at these kinds of issues and monitoring this, and we are absolutely not doing a sufficient job. I think that we do need some additional resources and efforts in this area. I would encourage, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) to try to work with us to see if we could not find some additional funding as we move into conference, but I would like to support the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown). The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown). The amendment was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: In addition, mammography user fees authorized by 42 U.S.C. 263(b) may be credited to this account, to remain available until expended. In addition, export certification user fees authorized by 21 U.S.C. 381, as amended, may be credited to this account, to remain available until expended. Buildings and Facilities For plans, construction, repair, improvement, extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities of or used by the Food and Drug Administration, where not otherwise provided, $11,350,000, to remain available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b). INDEPENDENT AGENCIES Commodity Futures Trading Commission For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), including the purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles; the rental of space (to include multiple year leases) in the District of Columbia and elsewhere; and not to exceed $25,000 for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109, $69,000,000, including not to exceed $2,000 for official reception and representation expenses: Provided, That for fiscal year 2001 and thereafter, the Commission is authorized to charge reasonable fees to attendees of Commission sponsored educational events and symposia to cover the Commission's costs of providing those events and symposia, and notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, said fees shall be credited to this account, to be available without further appropriation. Farm Credit Administration Limitation on Administrative Expenses Not to exceed $36,800,000 (from assessments collected from farm credit institutions and from the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation) shall be obligated during the current fiscal year for administrative expenses as authorized under 12 U.S.C. 2249: Provided, That this limitation shall not apply to expenses associated with receiverships. TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. 701. Within the unit limit of cost fixed by law, appropriations and authorizations made for the Department of Agriculture for the current fiscal year under this Act shall be available for the purchase, in addition to those specifically provided for, of not to exceed 389 passenger motor vehicles, of which 385 shall be for replacement only, and for the hire of such vehicles. Sec. 702. Funds in this Act available to the Department of Agriculture shall be available for uniforms or allowances therefor as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902). Sec. 703. Not less than $1,500,000 of the appropriations of the Department of Agriculture in this Act for research and service work authorized by sections 1 and 10 of the Act of June 29, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 427, 427i; commonly known as the Bankhead-Jones Act), subtitle A of title II and section 302 of the Act of August 14, 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq.), and chapter 63 of title 31, United States Code, shall be available for contracting in accordance with such Acts and chapter. Sec. 704. The Secretary may transfer funds provided under this Act and other available unobligated balances of the Department of Agriculture to the Working Capital Fund for the acquisition of plant and capital equipment necessary for the delivery of financial, administrative, and information technology services: Provided, That none of the funds made available by this Act or any other Act shall be transferred to the Working Capital Fund without the prior approval of the agency administrator. Sec. 705. New obligational authority provided for the following appropriation items in this Act shall remain available until expended: Animal and Plant Health Inspection [[Page H5686]] Service, the contingency fund to meet emergency conditions, fruit fly program, integrated systems acquisition project, boll weevil program, up to 10 percent of the screwworm program, and up to $2,000,000 for costs associated with colocating regional offices; Food Safety and Inspection Service, field automation and information management project; funds appropriated for rental payments; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, funds for competitive research grants (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)) and funds for the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund; Farm Service Agency, salaries and expenses funds made available to county committees; Foreign Agricultural Service, middle-income country training program and up to $2,000,000 of the Foreign Agricultural Service appropriation solely for the purpose of offsetting fluctuations in international currency exchange rates, subject to documentation by the Foreign Agricultural Service. Sec. 706. No part of any appropriation contained in this Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein. Sec. 707. Not to exceed $50,000 of the appropriations available to the Department of Agriculture in this Act shall be available to provide appropriate orientation and language training pursuant to section 606C of the Act of August 28, 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1766b; commonly known as the Agricultural Act of 1954). Sec. 708. No funds appropriated by this Act may be used to pay negotiated indirect cost rates on cooperative agreements or similar arrangements between the United States Department of Agriculture and nonprofit institutions in excess of 10 percent of the total direct cost of the agreement when the purpose of such cooperative arrangements is to carry out programs of mutual interest between the two parties. This does not preclude appropriate payment of indirect costs on grants and contracts with such institutions when such indirect costs are computed on a similar basis for all agencies for which appropriations are provided in this Act. Sec. 709. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, commodities acquired by the Department in connection with the Commodity Credit Corporation and section 32 price support operations may be used, as authorized by law (15 U.S.C. 714c and 7 U.S.C. 612c), to provide commodities to individuals in cases of hardship as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture. Sec. 710. None of the funds in this Act shall be available to restrict the authority of the Commodity Credit Corporation to lease space for its own use or to lease space on behalf of other agencies of the Department of Agriculture when such space will be jointly occupied. Sec. 711. None of the funds in this Act shall be available to pay indirect costs charged against competitive agricultural research, education, or extension grant awards issued by the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service that exceed 19 percent of total Federal funds provided under each award: Provided, That notwithstanding section 1462 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3310), funds provided by this Act for grants awarded competitively by the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service shall be available to pay full allowable indirect costs for each grant awarded under section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638). Sec. 712. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, all loan levels provided in this Act shall be considered estimates, not limitations. Sec. 713. Appropriations to the Department of Agriculture for the cost of direct and guaranteed loans made available in the current fiscal year shall remain available until expended to cover obligations made in the current fiscal year for the following accounts: the rural development loan fund program account; the rural telephone bank program account; the rural electrification and telecommunications loans program account; the rural housing insurance fund program account; and the rural economic development loans program account. Sec. 714. Such sums as may be necessary for the current fiscal year pay raises for programs funded by this Act shall be absorbed within the levels appropriated by this Act. Sec. 715. Notwithstanding chapter 63 of title 31, United States Code, marketing services of the Agricultural Marketing Service; the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration; the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; and the food safety activities of the Food Safety and Inspection Service may use cooperative agreements to reflect a relationship between the Agricultural Marketing Service; the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration; the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; or the Food Safety and Inspection Service and a State or Cooperator to carry out agricultural marketing programs, to carry out programs to protect the Nation's animal and plant resources, or to carry out educational programs or special studies to improve the safety of the Nation's food supply. Sec. 716. Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including provisions of law requiring competition), the Secretary of Agriculture may hereafter enter into cooperative agreements (which may provide for the acquisition of goods or services, including personal services) with a State, political subdivision, or agency thereof, a public or private agency, organization, or any other person, if the Secretary determines that the objectives of the agreement will: (1) serve a mutual interest of the parties to the agreement in carrying out the programs administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service; and (2) all parties will contribute resources to the accomplishment of these objectives: Provided, That Commodity Credit Corporation funds obligated for such purposes shall not exceed the level obligated by the Commodity Credit Corporation for such purposes in fiscal year 1998. Sec. 717. None of the funds in this Act may be used to retire more than 5 percent of the Class A stock of the Rural Telephone Bank or to maintain any account or subaccount within the accounting records of the Rural Telephone Bank the creation of which has not specifically been authorized by statute: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this Act may be used to transfer to the Treasury or to the Federal Financing Bank any unobligated balance of the Rural Telephone Bank telephone liquidating account which is in excess of current requirements and such balance shall receive interest as set forth for financial accounts in section 505(c) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990. Sec. 718. Of the funds made available by this Act, not more than $1,500,000 shall be used to cover necessary expenses of activities related to all advisory committees, panels, commissions, and task forces of the Department of Agriculture, except for panels used to comply with negotiated rule makings and panels used to evaluate competitively awarded grants. Sec. 719. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used to carry out section 410 of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 679a) or section 30 of the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 471). Sec. 720. No employee of the Department of Agriculture may be detailed or assigned from an agency or office funded by this Act to any other agency or office of the Department for more than 30 days unless the individual's employing agency or office is fully reimbursed by the receiving agency or office for the salary and expenses of the employee for the period of assignment. Sec. 721. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Agriculture shall be used to transmit or otherwise make available to any non-Department of Agriculture employee questions or responses to questions that are a result of information requested for the appropriations hearing process. Sec. 722. None of the funds made available to the Department of Agriculture by this Act may be used to acquire new information technology systems or significant upgrades, as determined by the Office of the Chief Information Officer, without the approval of the Chief Information Officer and the concurrence of the Executive Information Technology Investment Review Board: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be transferred to the Office of the Chief Information Officer without the prior approval of the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress. Sec. 723. (a) None of the funds provided by this Act, or provided by previous Appropriations Acts to the agencies funded by this Act that remain available for obligation or expenditure in the current fiscal year, or provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the collection of fees available to the agencies funded by this Act, shall be available for obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of funds which: (1) creates new programs; (2) eliminates a program, project, or activity; (3) increases funds or personnel by any means for any project or activity for which funds have been denied or restricted; (4) relocates an office or employees; (5) reorganizes offices, programs, or activities; or (6) contracts out or privatizes any functions or activities presently performed by Federal employees; unless the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress are notified 15 days in advance of such reprogramming of funds. (b) None of the funds provided by this Act, or provided by previous Appropriations Acts to the agencies funded by this Act that remain available for obligation or expenditure in the current fiscal year, or provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the collection of fees available to the agencies funded by this Act, shall be available for obligation or expenditure for activities, programs, or projects through a reprogramming of funds in excess of $500,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, that: (1) augments existing programs, projects, or activities; (2) reduces by 10 percent funding for any existing program, project, or activity, or numbers of personnel by 10 percent as approved by Congress; or (3) results from any general savings from a reduction in personnel which would result in a change in existing programs, activities, or projects as approved by Congress; unless the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress are notified 15 days in advance of such reprogramming of funds. Sec. 724. With the exception of funds needed to administer and conduct oversight of grants awarded and obligations incurred prior to enactment of this Act, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other Act may be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out section 793 of Public Law 104-127, the Fund for Rural America (7 U.S.C. 2204f). [[Page H5687]] Sec. 725. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel who carry out an environmental quality incentives program authorized by chapter 4 of subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa et seq.) in excess of $174,000,000. Sec. 726. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise available to the Department of Agriculture in the current fiscal year or thereafter may be used to administer the provision of contract payments to a producer under the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.) for contract acreage on which wild rice is planted unless the contract payment is reduced by an acre for each contract acre planted to wild rice. Sec. 727. With the exception of funds needed to administer and conduct oversight of grants awarded and obligations incurred prior to enactment of this Act, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other Act may be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out the provisions of section 401 of Public Law 105- 185, the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems (7 U.S.C. 7621). Sec. 728. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act shall be used to carry out any commodity purchase program that would prohibit eligibility or participation by farmer-owned cooperatives. Sec. 729. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out a conservation farm option program, as authorized by section 1240M of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839bb). Sec. 730. None of the funds made available by this Act or any other Act for any fiscal year may be used to carry out section 203(h) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1622(h)) unless the Secretary of Agriculture inspects and certifies agricultural processing equipment, and imposes a fee for the inspection and certification, in a manner that is similar to the inspection and certification of agricultural products under that section, as determined by the Secretary: Provided, That this provision shall not affect the authority of the Secretary to carry out the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.), or the Egg Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 1031 et seq.). Sec. 731. None of the funds appropriated by this Act or any other Act shall be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel who prepare or submit appropriations language as part of the President's Budget submission to the Congress of the United States for programs under the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Subcommittees on Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies that assumes revenues or reflects a reduction from the previous year due to user fees proposals that have not been enacted into law prior to the submission of the Budget unless such Budget submission identifies which additional spending reductions should occur in the event the user fees proposals are not enacted prior to the date of the convening of a committee of conference for the fiscal year 2002 appropriations Act. Sec. 732. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act shall be used to carry out a Community Food Security program or any similar activity within the United States Department of Agriculture without the prior approval of the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress. Sec. 733. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other Act may be used to carry out provision of section 612 of Public Law 105-185. Mr. SKEEN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of title VII through page 72, line 4 be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Mexico? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to this portion of the bill? If not, the Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: Sec. 734. Hereafter no funds shall be used for the Kyoto Protocol, including such Kyoto mechanisms as carbon emissions trading schemes and the Clean Development Mechanism that are found solely in the Kyoto Protocol and nowhere in the laws of the United States. Amendment No. 58 Offered by Mr. Knollenberg Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 58 offered by Mr. Knollenberg: Page 72, line 5, strike Section 734 and Insert as Section 734: None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be used to propose or issue rules, regulations, decrees, or orders for the purpose of implementation, or in preparation for implementation, of the Kyoto Protocol which was adopted on December 11, 1997, in Kyoto, Japan, at the Third Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which has not been submitted to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification pursuant to article II, section 2, clause 2, of the United States Constitution, and which has not entered into force pursuant to article 25 of the Protocol; Provided further, the limitation established in this section not apply to any activity otherwise authorized by law. Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I want to state at the outset that this amendment makes the language for this Agriculture Appropriations bill, H.R. 4461, exactly the same, word-for-word, as the language in the energy and water appropriations bill, the same, word-for-word, that will be in the foreign operations bill that will come before this body this week. This language passed by voice vote with no opposition in about 1 minute just a few days ago. I would like to make four quick key points that are actually directed in this amendment. Number one, no agency can proceed with activities that are not specifically authorized and funded. Number two, no new authority is granted. Number three, neither the United Nations framework convention on climate control, nor the Kyoto Protocol are self-executing and specific implementing legislation is required for any regulation, program or initiative. Number four, since the Kyoto Protocol has not ratified and implementing legislation has not been approved by Congress, nothing contained exclusively in that treaty is funded. Mr. Chairman, I just want to urge all Members to support what is a bipartisan supported amendment, and it has been our effort to strengthen through clarification and offer consistently in all of these bills and we think that is the proper approach, it simplifies things, clarifies things and I think strengthens things. Mr. Chairman, in the morning two days ago, the House Appropriations Committee accepted my amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. That afternoon an amendment that the gentleman from Indiana Mr. Visclosky offered on the Energy and Water Appropriations bill was exactly the same wording as what I offered and what was accepted in the full House Appropriations Committee. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that this amendment regarding the Kyoto Protocol offered by me and then Mr. Visclosky and now again by me cannot, under the Rules of the House of Representatives, authorize anything whatsoever on this Agriculture Appropriations bill, H.R. 106- 4461, lest it be subject to a point of order. This amendment shall not go beyond clarification and recognition of the original and enduring meaning of the law that has existed for years now--specifically that no funds be spent on unauthorized activities for the fatally flawed and unratified Kyoto Protocol. Mr. Chairman, the whole nation deserves to hear the plea of this Administration for clarification of the Kyoto Protocol funding limitation. The plea came from the coordinator of all environmental policy for this Administration, George Frampton, in his position as Acting Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality. On March 1, 2000, on behalf of the Administration he stated before the VA/HUD appropriations subcommittee, and I quote, ``Just to finish our dialogue here [about the Kyoto Protocol funding limitation], my point was that it is the very uncertainty about the scope of the language . . . that gives rise to our wanting to not have the continuation of this uncertainty created next year.'' Mr. Chairman, I agree with Mr. Obey when he stated to the Administration, ``You're nuts!'' upon learning of the fatally flawed Kyoto Protocol that Vice President Gore negotiated. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Congress for the focus on the activities of this Administration, both authorized and unauthorized. This amendment shall be read to be a clarification that is fully consistent with the provision that has been signed by President Clinton in six current appropriations laws. A few key points must be reviewed: First, no agency can proceed with activities that are not specifically authorized and funded. Mr. Chairman, there has been an effort to confuse the long-standing support that I as well as other strong supporters of the provision on the Kyoto Protocol have regarding important energy supply and energy conservation program. For example, there has never been a question about strong support for voluntary programs, development of clean coal technology, and improvements in energy conservation for all sectors of our economy. Notwithstanding arguments that have been made on the floor in recent days, I have never, ever tried to undermine, eliminate, delete, or delay any programs that have been specifically authorized and funded. Second, no new authority is granted. [[Page H5688]] Third, since neither the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change nor the Kyoto Protocol are self executing, specific implementing legislation is required for any regulation, program, or initiative. Fourth, since the Kyoto Protocol has not been ratified and implementing legislation has not been approved by Congress, nothing contained exclusively in that treaty is funded. Mr. Chairman, as you know, the Administration negotiated the Kyoto Climate Change Protocol some time ago but has decided not to submit this treaty to the United States Senate for ratification. All indications from this Administration lead to the conclusion that they have no intention of ever submitting the Kyoto Protocol to the Senate. Pursuant to Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, the President only has the power to make treaties ``by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.'' It is therefore unconstitutional for the President to make a treaty in contravention of the Advice of the Senate. The unanimous (95-0) advice of the Senate was given in Senate Resolution 105-98, referred to as the Byrd-Hagel Resolution. Likewise it is therefore unconstitutional for the President to make a treaty with no intention of ever seeking the consent of the Senate. The Protocol places severe restrictions on the United States while exempting most countries, including China, India, Mexico, and Brazil, from taking measures to reduce carbon dioxide equivalent emissions. The Administration undertook this course of action despite unanimous support in the United States Senate for the Senate's advice in the form of the Byrd-Hagel resolution calling for commitments by all nations and on the condition that the Protocol not adversely impact the economy of the United States. We are also concerned that actions taken by Federal agencies constitute the implementation of this treaty before its submission to Congress as required by the Constitution of the United States. Clearly, Congress cannot allow any agency to attempt to interpret current law to avoid constitutional due process. Clearly, we would not need this debate if the Administration would send the treaty to the Senate. The treaty would be disposed of and we could return to a more productive process for addressing our energy future. During numerous hearings on this issue, the administration has not been willing to engage in this debate. For example, it took months to extract the documents the administration used for its flawed economics. The message is clear--there is no interest in sharing with the American public the real price tag of this policy. A balanced public debate will be required because there is much to be learned about the issue before we commit this country to unprecedented curbs on energy use while most of the world is exempt. Worse yet, some treaty supporters see this as only a first step to elimination of fossil energy production. Unfortunately, the Administration has chosen to keep this issue out of the current debate. I look forward to working to assure that the administration and EPA understand the boundaries of the current law. It will be up to Congress to assure that backdoor implementation of the Kyoto Protocol does not occur. In that regard I would like to include in the Record a letter with legislative history of the Clean Air Act reported by Congressman John Dingell who was the Chairman of the House Conference on the Clearn Air Act amendments of 1990. No one knows the Clean Air Act like Congressman Dingell. He makes clear, and I quote, ``Congress has not enacted implementing legislation authorizing EPA or any other agency to regulate greenhouse gases.'' In closing, I look forward to the report language to clarify what activities are and are not authorized. Mr. Chairman, I include the following letter for the Record: October 5, 1999. Hon. David M. McIntosh, Chairman, Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs, Committee on Government Reform, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that you have asked, based on discussions between our staffs, about the disposition by the House-Senate conferees of the amendments in 1990 to the Clean Air Act (CAA) regarding greenhouse gases such as methane and carbon dioxide. In making this inquiry, you call my attention to an April 10, 1998 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) memorandum entitled `EPA's Authority to Regulate Pollutants Emitted by Electric Power Generation Sources' and an October 12, 1998 memorandum entitled `The Authority of EPA to Regulate Carbon Dioxide Under the Clean Air Act' prepared for the National Mining Association. The latter memorandum discusses the legislative history of the 1990 amendments. First, the House-passed bill (H.R. 3030) never included any provision regarding the regulation of any greenhouse gas, such as methane or carbon dioxide, nor did the bill address global climate change. The House, however, did include provisions aimed at implementing the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Second, as to the Senate version (S. 1630) of the proposed amendments, the October 12, 1998 memorandum correctly points out that the Senate did address greenhouse gas matters and global warming, along with provisions implementing the Montreal Protocol. Nevertheless, only Montreal Protocol related provisions were agreed to by the House-Senate conferees (see Conf. Rept. 101-952, Oct. 26, 1990). However, I should point out that Public Law 101-549 of November 15, 1990, which contains the 1990 amendments to the CAA, includes some provisions, such as sections 813, 817 and 819-821, that were enacted as free-standing provisions separate from the CAA. Although the Public Law often refers to the `Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,' the Public Law does not specify that reference as the `short title' of all of the provisions included the Public Law. One of these free-standing provisions, section 821, entitled `Information Gathering on Greenhouse Gases contributing to Global Climate Change' appears in the United States code as a `note' (at 42 U.S.C. 7651k). It requires regulations by the EPA to `monitor carbon dioxide emissions' from `all affected sources subject to title V' of the CAA and specifies that the emissions are to be reported to the EPA. That section does not designate carbon dioxide as a `pollutant' for any purpose. Finally, Title IX of the Conference Report, entitled `Clean Air Research,' was primarily negotiated at the time by the House and Senate Science Committees, which had no regulatory jurisdiction under House-Senate Rules. This title amended section 103 of the CAA by adding new subsections (c) through (k). New subsection (g), entitled `Pollution Prevention and Control,' calls for `non-regulatory strategies and technologies for air pollution prevention.' While it refers, as noted in the EPA memorandum, to carbon dioxide as a `pollutant,' House and Senate conferees never agreed to designate carbon dioxide as a pollutant for regulatory or other purposes. Based on my review of this history and my recollection of the discussions, I would have difficulty concluding that the House-Senate conferees, who rejected the Senate regulatory provisions (with the exception of the above-referenced section 821), contemplated regulating greenhouse gas emissions or addressing global warming under the Clean Air Act. Shortly after enactment of Public Law 101-549, the United Nations General Assembly established in December 1990 the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee that ultimately led to the Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was ratified by the United States after advice and consent by the Senate. That Convention is, of course, not self-executing, and the Congress has not enacted implementing legislation authorizing EPA or any other agency to regulate greenhouse gases. I hope that this is responsive. With best wishes, Sincerely, John D. Dingell, Ranking Member. Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Knollenberg amendment. His characterization of the language is absolutely correct. It is the same as energy and water, it is the same as full committee has reported for foreign operations and essentially the same intent as Veterans Administration, HUD and Urban Development as well. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate his work in a bipartisan fashion and, again, I agree with the premise of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), Kyoto is not the law of the land, but we want to ensure that where we have authorized programs and where there is duplicate language that the law can also be followed. I do appreciate the initiative of the gentleman and would ask my colleagues to support his amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg). The amendment was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: Sec. 735. After taking any action involving the seizure, quarantine, treatment, destruction, or disposal of wheat infested with karnal bunt, the Secretary of Agriculture shall compensate the producers and handlers for economic losses incurred as the result of the action not later than 45 days after receipt of a claim that includes all appropriate paperwork. Sec. 736. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Town of Lloyd, New York and the Town of Harris, New York shall be eligible for loans and grants provided through the Rural Community Advancement Program. {time} 1630 Amendment No. 56 Offered by Mr. Boyd Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. [[Page H5689]] The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 56 offered by Mr. Boyd: Page 72, lines 18 and 19, strike ``Town of Harris'' and insert ``Town of Thompson''. Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure that we have the amendment correct. It should be the amendment that changes the ``Town of Harris'' to the ``Town of Thompson.'' The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida is correct. Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, it is a technical amendment. I ask support for the amendment. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I accept the gentleman's amendment and recommend that the House do so as well. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd). The amendment was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read: The Clerk read as follows: Sec. 737. Hereafter, notwithstanding section 502(h)(7) of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1472(h)(7)), the fee collected by the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to a guaranteed loan under such section 502(h) at the time of the issuance of such guarantee may be in an amount equal to not more than 2 percent of the principal obligation of the loan. Sec. 738. The Secretary of Agriculture may use funds available under this and subsequent appropriation Acts to employ individuals to perform services outside the United States as determined by the agencies to be necessary or appropriate for carrying out programs and activities abroad; and such employment actions, hereafter referred to as Personal Service Agreements (PSA), are authorized to be negotiated, the terms of the PSA to be prescribed and work to be performed, where necessary, without regard to such statutory provisions as related to the negotiation, making and performance of contracts and performance of work in the United States. Individuals employed under a PSA to perform such services outside the United States shall not by virtue of such employment be considered employees of the United States Government for purposes of any law administered by the Office of Personnel Management. Such individuals may be considered employees within the meaning of the Federal Employee Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. 8101 et seq. Further, that Government service credit shall be accrued for the time employed under a PSA should the individual later be hired into a permanent U.S. Government position within FAS or another U.S. Government agency if their authorities so permit. Sec. 739. (a) In General.--Section 141 of the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7251) is amended-- (1) in subsection (b)(4), by striking ``and 2000''; and inserting ``through 2001''; and (2) in subsection (h), by striking ``2000'' each place it appears and inserting ``2001''. (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 142(e) of the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7252(e)) is amended by striking ``2001'' and inserting ``2002''. Sec. 740. In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated or made available by this Act, $4,000,000 is appropriated for the purpose of providing Bill Emerson and Mickey Leland Hunger Fellowships through the Congressional Hunger Center. Sec. 741. Notwithstanding section 718, title VII of Public Law 105-277, as amended, funds made available hereafter in annual appropriations acts may be used to provide market access program assistance pursuant to section 203 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978, as amended (7 U.S.C. 5623), to any agricultural commodity as defined in section 102 of the Agriculture Trade Act of 1978, as amended (7 U.S.C. 5602), except for products specifically excluded by section 1302, title I of Public Law 103-66, as amended, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. Point of Order Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order on this section restoring the eligibility of mink for MAP funds. The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members who wish to be heard on the point of order that this section constitutes legislation? The Chair finds, that this provision explicitly supersedes existing law in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained, and the provision is stricken from the bill. The Clerk will read. The Clerk

Summary:

All articles in House section

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
(House of Representatives - July 10, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H5683-H5718] AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 538 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 4461. {time} 1602 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4461) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, with Mr. Nussle in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole House rose on Thursday, June 29, 2000, the bill was open for amendment from page 57, line 12, to page 58, line 8. Are there further amendments to that portion of the bill? Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a series of discussions with the distinguished gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen). Mr. Chairman, as we know, the Senate bill provides direct payments to dairy farmers estimated at $443 million to offset the record low prices we have seen for much of the past year. I would simply ask the chairman if he would be willing to work with me to ensure that direct payments for dairy farmers are included in the bill when it emerges from conference. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to work with the gentleman from Wisconsin. I find that we agree more often than not on the specifics of dairy policy, and would point to the last 2 years of economic assistance payments we have jointly inserted into the agriculture appropriations conference report as proof. Accordingly, I will be pleased to carry out our tradition of working together on dairy producer assistance, when and if we ever get to conference. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. Let me turn to another subject, that of ultrafiltered milk. It seems there is always some new issue popping up in the dairy area. There are growing fears about the damaging impact on domestic dairy producers from imports of dry ultrafiltered or UF milk. Ultrafiltration is an important technology widely used in cheese plants for about 15 years to remove water, lactose, and minerals and allow manufacturers to manipulate the ingredients in cheese to arrive at the desired finished product. The use of liquid UF milk from another location has been approved by FDA on a case-by-case basis, but there is another problem. The problem is the threat of unlimited imports of dry UF milk from places like New Zealand following a petition to FDA earlier this year by the National Cheese Institute to change the standards of identity for cheese. I understand that there are no quotas or tariffs on this product, which is currently used in bakery mixes, ice cream, and other products that do not have the strict standards of identity that cheese has. There have also been newspaper reports suggesting that dry UF milk is already being imported for use in American cheese plants, in violation of FDA regulations. We need to know what the facts are so we can develop an appropriate response. At a minimum, we need to understand first how much UF milk is coming into the country and what it is used for. I would ask the chairman of the subcommittee if he would be willing to work with us to get answers to those questions through the GAO and other sources. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I, too, have an interest in ultrafiltered milk. I believe it is prudent to have empirical facts in order to understand the specifics of a somewhat muddled portion of the dairy production and cheese-making process. I would offer to the gentleman that we will jointly direct either the GAO or the committee S staff to conduct a factual investigation into how much UF milk is produced in this country and how much is being imported and what it is used for. At that time, and with the facts on our side, I am confident that we will be able to address the issue in an intelligent and productive manner. Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman. Now I would like to turn to another subject, Mr. Chairman. That is the Dairy Export Incentive Program. I am concerned that the USDA is not being aggressive enough in encouraging dairy exports through the Dairy Export Incentive Program, or DEIP, which allows us to compete in world markets with highly subsidized exports in the European Union. About 10 percent of DEIP contracts are apparently canceled, I understand due mainly to price undercutting by our competitors. For whatever the reason, we apparently have about 40,000 metric tons of canceled nonfat dry milk contracts dating back to June of 1995. This canceled tonnage can be reprogrammed for export by allowing exporters to rebid for them, but the Foreign Agricultural Service appears reluctant to do that, perhaps fearing that it may be taken to the WTO court by the European Union. Mr. Chairman, as we know, DEIP saves money. It is cheaper to export surplus nonfat dry milk than it is for USDA to buy it and store it. Removing this product from the domestic market would have a beneficial impact on dairy prices. As such, again, I would ask the chair of the subcommittee to help me convince USDA to propose a solution to resolve the problem by the time we have reached conference on this bill, one that might include establishing a procedure for automatic rebidding of canceled tonnage. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, again, I would be pleased to work with the gentleman to address his concerns, as they are shared by myself and many others. It seems the administration has been entirely too willing to roll over to our competitors without looking to the interests of America's farmers and ranchers first, and anything we can do to reverse the trend will be a step forward. Mr. OBEY. I thank the chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise the question of cranberries. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has expired. (By unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was allowed to proceed for 4 additional minutes.) Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, with respect to that product, cranberry growers, as we know, like all farmers today, it seems they are in dire straits due to overproduction, massive overproduction and lower prices. It costs about $35 per barrel to produce cranberries. Some growers in my district are getting as little as $9 or $10 a barrel for their crop. The USDA recently announced its support for industry-proposed volume controls that are desperately needed to get a handle on overproduction. That is part of the solution, but will add to the farm income problems those cranberry growers are facing, so it seems to me we have to look for more things that can be done. Another part of the solution might be for USDA to purchase surplus products. USDA has been very responsive so far looking for opportunities to purchase surplus product, but much more needs to be done if we are to restore balance to supply and demand. [[Page H5684]] As we know, cranberries are among the specialty crops eligible for purchase by the Secretary, with $200 million provided from the recently-passed crop insurance bill. Would the chairman work with me to urge USDA to aggressively use the authority it has to purchase surplus cranberry products in a way that will make a significant difference to the industry? Mr. SKEEN. If the gentleman will yield further, I will be glad to work with the gentleman towards that end. Mr. OBEY. I would also appreciate it if the chairman would also help us to explore the possibility of helping growers through the current difficult times with direct payments. The Cranberry Industry estimates that $20 million will improve income by about $3 to $4 per barrel for each grower. This bill already includes $100 million direct assistance to apple and potato growers. We have helped pork farmers, dairy farmers, wheat, corn, cotton, rice, oilseeds, and many others. Would the chairman of the subcommittee be willing to work with me to ensure that America's cranberry growers receive the same kind of consideration in this respect that many other farmers have received? Mr. SKEEN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, again, I would be very happy to work with the gentleman, as I, too, believe that specialty crops do not receive the support and attention that they deserve. Cranberries would definitely fall into that category. Mr. OBEY. I thank the chairman, and I appreciate his consideration. Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, recently I introduced H.R. 4652, the Quality Cheese Act of 2000. This bipartisan bill would prohibit the FDA from allowing the use of dry ultrafiltered milk in the making of natural cheese. My reason for introducing the bill was simple. Dry ultrafiltered milk, which is a milk derivative, can come in the United States virtually duty-free. It can take the place of domestically produced milk in cheese vats and the consumer cannot tell the difference. Using imported dry ultrafiltered milk would also undercut our domestic dairy farmers' market for their milk. My Wisconsin dairy farmers are already receiving the lowest price for their milk in over 20 years. We cannot allow their market to be further eroded. There have been reports in farm publications that there are large volumes of dry ultrafiltered milk currently being imported. That is perfectly legal, but we do not know what the dry ultrafiltered milk is being used for. If this dry ultrafiltered milk is being used in natural cheese-making, it is being used illegally, to the detriment of consumers and the dairy farmers I represent. It is my hope that the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations, will work with myself and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to find an answer to this important question. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield? Ms. BALDWIN. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, as the gentlewoman knows, I also have an interest in ultrafiltered milk, as I recently discussed with the gentlewoman's colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). I believe it is wise to understand the specifics of a somewhat muddled segment of the dairy production and cheese-making production. Accordingly, we have to agree to jointly direct either the GAO or the subcommittee's S staff to conduct a factual investigation into how much UF milk is produced in this country and how much is being imported and what is it used for, and at that time, with the facts on our side, I am confident that we will be able to address the issue in an intelligent and productive manner. I appreciate the gentlewoman's concerns, and look forward to working with her on behalf of the Nation's dairy industry. Ms. BALDWIN. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Chairman. Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 38 offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio: Page 58, line 4, insert after the colon the following: ``Provided further, That $3,000,000 may be for activities carried out pursuant to section 512 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to new animal drugs, in addition to the amounts otherwise available under this heading for such activities:''. {time} 1615 Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, this amendment concerns antibiotic resistance from the use of antibiotics in livestock. I would like to start with a story. Imagine your 7-year-old daughter is very sick from food poisoning. You take her to the hospital and antibiotics do not help. In a week, she dies a painful death. The autopsy shows that her body is riddled with E. coli bacteria which ate away at her organs from her brain down. This is a true story, and it happened to a family in northeast Ohio 2 years ago. We thought we were winning the war against infectious diseases. With the introduction of antibiotics in the 1940s, humans gained an overwhelming advantage in the fight against bacteria that cause infectious diseases, but the war is not over. Mr. Chairman, 2 weeks ago, the World Health Organization issued a ringing warning against antibiotic resistance. Around the world, microbes are mutating at an alarming rate into the new strains that fail to respond to drugs. Dr. Marcos Esponal of the World Health Organization said, ``we already have lost some of the current good antibiotics, streptomycin for TB; it's almost lost. Chloroquin for malaria, it's lost; penicillin, nobody uses it now; if we keep the same pace, we will be losing other potent and powerful drugs. So a window of opportunity is closing, and I would say if we don't act now, in 5 to 10 years, we will have a major crisis''; words from the World Health Organization. We need to develop, Mr. Chairman, new antibiotics but it is too soon obviously to give up on the ones we have. By using antibiotics and antimicrobials more wisely and more sparingly, we can slow down antibiotic resistance. We need to change the way drugs are given to people to be sure, but we also need to look at the way drugs are given to animals. According to the WHO, 50 percent of all antibiotics are used in agriculture, both for animals and for plants. In the U.S., livestock producers use drugs to treat sick herds and flocks legitimately. They also feed a steady diet of antibiotics for healthy livestock so they will gain weight more quickly and be ready for market sooner. Many of these drugs are the same ones used to treat infections in people, including tetracycline. Prolonged exposure to antibiotics in farm animals provide a breeding ground science tells us for resistance strains of E. coli, salmonella and other bacteria harmful to humans. When transferred to people through food, it can cause dangerous infections. Last week, an interagency task force issued a draft Public Health Action Plan to combat antimicrobial resistance. The plan provides a blueprint for specific, coordinated Federal actions. A top priority action item in the draft plan highlights work already underway at the Food and Drug Administration's Center for Veterinary Medicine. In December of 1998, the FDA issued a proposed framework for evaluating and regulating new animal drugs in light of their contribution to antibiotic resistance in humans. The agency proposes to evaluate the drugs on the basis of their importance in human medicine and the potential exposure of humans to resistant bacteria that come from animals. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would direct $3 million toward the Center for Veterinary Medicine's work on antibiotic resistance related to animal drugs. CVM Director Sundloff has stated that antibiotic resistance is the Center's top priority. However, the framework document states the agency [[Page H5685]] will look first at approvals for new animal drugs and will look at drugs already in use in animals as time and resources permit. We think an additional $3 million would give a significant boost to the ability of the Center for Veterinary Medicine to move forward on antibiotic resistance. Our amendment directs FDA to shift these funds from within the agency, while leaving the decision on the sources of the offset to the agency itself. Please note the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Chairman, has recommended a $53 million budget increase for FDA. Given this increase, we believe the agency can free up $3 million of that increase for its work on antibiotic resistance without harming other programs. Mr. Chairman, I ask for his support, and ask for support of Members of the House for this amendment. The lives of our young children and our elderly parents, the people most vulnerable to food-borne illness, may be at stake. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, it provides an additional $3 million for a particular FDA activity, presumably to be funded at the expense of other FDA priorities. I understand the forthright interest of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) in this situation and what the gentleman wants to do. The committee has fully funded the President's fiscal year 2001 budget request for new animal drug review, as can be seen on page 60 of the committee report on this bill. The President requested $62,761,000 for the animal drugs and feeds program, an increase of $14,048,000 over fiscal year 2000. The committee fully funded the administration's request, which is a generous 22 percent increase. Since the request was fully funded, I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same. Please vote no on the amendment. Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and rise to support the Brown amendment to increase the antibiotic resistance funding by $3 million. Earlier this month, the World Health Organization issued a strong warning against antibiotic resistance. If I may quote from the WHO, they said, ``the world may only have a decade or two to make optimal use of many of the medicines presently available to stop infectious diseases. We are literally in a race against time to bring levels of infectious disease down worldwide before the disease wears the drugs down first''; that is by Mr. David Heymann, executive director of the World Health Organization's communicable disease program. Mr. Chairman, while many factors contribute to antibiotic resistance, an important cause is the overuse of antibiotics in livestock, both for treating disease and promoting faster growth. Many livestock receive a steady diet of antibiotics that are used in human medicine, especially tetracycline and penicillin. Antibiotic-resistant microbes are then transferred from animals to humans primarily in food, causing infection from salmonella and E. coli that are difficult or impossible to treat. Children and the elderly are most at risk for serious illness or death. The World Health Organization recommends reducing antibiotic use in animals to protect our own human health. The Food and Drug Administration's Center for Veterinary Medicine, CVM, is taking steps to reduce the problem of antibiotic resistance from drug use in livestock. The agency's plan primarily addresses new animal drugs and will address drugs currently in use when resources permit. That is where the Brown amendment comes in. This amendment would increase funding for the Food and Drug Administration's Center for Veterinary Medicine by $3 million for activities related to antibiotic resistance. Since the committee is recommending that the FDA receive an increase of $53 million, the Brown amendment would simply direct the agency to allocate an additional $3 million from the $53 million for this very important work. Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, to support the Brown amendment and this very important program. Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in support of the Brown amendment. Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring to the attention of the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) and the body that this certainly has been described as a very serious issue in America today. I appreciate the opposition of the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) to it on the basis of the funding. We do not know exactly where the funding is coming from, and I also understand that this is an issue that was not brought to the attention of the committee or subcommittee prior to today for increased funding. I would like to let the body know that there is some funding in the food safety initiative and the FDA has the jurisdiction, or the responsibility, of looking at these kinds of issues and monitoring this, and we are absolutely not doing a sufficient job. I think that we do need some additional resources and efforts in this area. I would encourage, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) to try to work with us to see if we could not find some additional funding as we move into conference, but I would like to support the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown). The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown). The amendment was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: In addition, mammography user fees authorized by 42 U.S.C. 263(b) may be credited to this account, to remain available until expended. In addition, export certification user fees authorized by 21 U.S.C. 381, as amended, may be credited to this account, to remain available until expended. Buildings and Facilities For plans, construction, repair, improvement, extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities of or used by the Food and Drug Administration, where not otherwise provided, $11,350,000, to remain available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b). INDEPENDENT AGENCIES Commodity Futures Trading Commission For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), including the purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles; the rental of space (to include multiple year leases) in the District of Columbia and elsewhere; and not to exceed $25,000 for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109, $69,000,000, including not to exceed $2,000 for official reception and representation expenses: Provided, That for fiscal year 2001 and thereafter, the Commission is authorized to charge reasonable fees to attendees of Commission sponsored educational events and symposia to cover the Commission's costs of providing those events and symposia, and notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, said fees shall be credited to this account, to be available without further appropriation. Farm Credit Administration Limitation on Administrative Expenses Not to exceed $36,800,000 (from assessments collected from farm credit institutions and from the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation) shall be obligated during the current fiscal year for administrative expenses as authorized under 12 U.S.C. 2249: Provided, That this limitation shall not apply to expenses associated with receiverships. TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. 701. Within the unit limit of cost fixed by law, appropriations and authorizations made for the Department of Agriculture for the current fiscal year under this Act shall be available for the purchase, in addition to those specifically provided for, of not to exceed 389 passenger motor vehicles, of which 385 shall be for replacement only, and for the hire of such vehicles. Sec. 702. Funds in this Act available to the Department of Agriculture shall be available for uniforms or allowances therefor as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902). Sec. 703. Not less than $1,500,000 of the appropriations of the Department of Agriculture in this Act for research and service work authorized by sections 1 and 10 of the Act of June 29, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 427, 427i; commonly known as the Bankhead-Jones Act), subtitle A of title II and section 302 of the Act of August 14, 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq.), and chapter 63 of title 31, United States Code, shall be available for contracting in accordance with such Acts and chapter. Sec. 704. The Secretary may transfer funds provided under this Act and other available unobligated balances of the Department of Agriculture to the Working Capital Fund for the acquisition of plant and capital equipment necessary for the delivery of financial, administrative, and information technology services: Provided, That none of the funds made available by this Act or any other Act shall be transferred to the Working Capital Fund without the prior approval of the agency administrator. Sec. 705. New obligational authority provided for the following appropriation items in this Act shall remain available until expended: Animal and Plant Health Inspection [[Page H5686]] Service, the contingency fund to meet emergency conditions, fruit fly program, integrated systems acquisition project, boll weevil program, up to 10 percent of the screwworm program, and up to $2,000,000 for costs associated with colocating regional offices; Food Safety and Inspection Service, field automation and information management project; funds appropriated for rental payments; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, funds for competitive research grants (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)) and funds for the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund; Farm Service Agency, salaries and expenses funds made available to county committees; Foreign Agricultural Service, middle-income country training program and up to $2,000,000 of the Foreign Agricultural Service appropriation solely for the purpose of offsetting fluctuations in international currency exchange rates, subject to documentation by the Foreign Agricultural Service. Sec. 706. No part of any appropriation contained in this Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein. Sec. 707. Not to exceed $50,000 of the appropriations available to the Department of Agriculture in this Act shall be available to provide appropriate orientation and language training pursuant to section 606C of the Act of August 28, 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1766b; commonly known as the Agricultural Act of 1954). Sec. 708. No funds appropriated by this Act may be used to pay negotiated indirect cost rates on cooperative agreements or similar arrangements between the United States Department of Agriculture and nonprofit institutions in excess of 10 percent of the total direct cost of the agreement when the purpose of such cooperative arrangements is to carry out programs of mutual interest between the two parties. This does not preclude appropriate payment of indirect costs on grants and contracts with such institutions when such indirect costs are computed on a similar basis for all agencies for which appropriations are provided in this Act. Sec. 709. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, commodities acquired by the Department in connection with the Commodity Credit Corporation and section 32 price support operations may be used, as authorized by law (15 U.S.C. 714c and 7 U.S.C. 612c), to provide commodities to individuals in cases of hardship as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture. Sec. 710. None of the funds in this Act shall be available to restrict the authority of the Commodity Credit Corporation to lease space for its own use or to lease space on behalf of other agencies of the Department of Agriculture when such space will be jointly occupied. Sec. 711. None of the funds in this Act shall be available to pay indirect costs charged against competitive agricultural research, education, or extension grant awards issued by the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service that exceed 19 percent of total Federal funds provided under each award: Provided, That notwithstanding section 1462 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3310), funds provided by this Act for grants awarded competitively by the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service shall be available to pay full allowable indirect costs for each grant awarded under section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638). Sec. 712. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, all loan levels provided in this Act shall be considered estimates, not limitations. Sec. 713. Appropriations to the Department of Agriculture for the cost of direct and guaranteed loans made available in the current fiscal year shall remain available until expended to cover obligations made in the current fiscal year for the following accounts: the rural development loan fund program account; the rural telephone bank program account; the rural electrification and telecommunications loans program account; the rural housing insurance fund program account; and the rural economic development loans program account. Sec. 714. Such sums as may be necessary for the current fiscal year pay raises for programs funded by this Act shall be absorbed within the levels appropriated by this Act. Sec. 715. Notwithstanding chapter 63 of title 31, United States Code, marketing services of the Agricultural Marketing Service; the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration; the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; and the food safety activities of the Food Safety and Inspection Service may use cooperative agreements to reflect a relationship between the Agricultural Marketing Service; the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration; the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; or the Food Safety and Inspection Service and a State or Cooperator to carry out agricultural marketing programs, to carry out programs to protect the Nation's animal and plant resources, or to carry out educational programs or special studies to improve the safety of the Nation's food supply. Sec. 716. Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including provisions of law requiring competition), the Secretary of Agriculture may hereafter enter into cooperative agreements (which may provide for the acquisition of goods or services, including personal services) with a State, political subdivision, or agency thereof, a public or private agency, organization, or any other person, if the Secretary determines that the objectives of the agreement will: (1) serve a mutual interest of the parties to the agreement in carrying out the programs administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service; and (2) all parties will contribute resources to the accomplishment of these objectives: Provided, That Commodity Credit Corporation funds obligated for such purposes shall not exceed the level obligated by the Commodity Credit Corporation for such purposes in fiscal year 1998. Sec. 717. None of the funds in this Act may be used to retire more than 5 percent of the Class A stock of the Rural Telephone Bank or to maintain any account or subaccount within the accounting records of the Rural Telephone Bank the creation of which has not specifically been authorized by statute: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this Act may be used to transfer to the Treasury or to the Federal Financing Bank any unobligated balance of the Rural Telephone Bank telephone liquidating account which is in excess of current requirements and such balance shall receive interest as set forth for financial accounts in section 505(c) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990. Sec. 718. Of the funds made available by this Act, not more than $1,500,000 shall be used to cover necessary expenses of activities related to all advisory committees, panels, commissions, and task forces of the Department of Agriculture, except for panels used to comply with negotiated rule makings and panels used to evaluate competitively awarded grants. Sec. 719. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used to carry out section 410 of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 679a) or section 30 of the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 471). Sec. 720. No employee of the Department of Agriculture may be detailed or assigned from an agency or office funded by this Act to any other agency or office of the Department for more than 30 days unless the individual's employing agency or office is fully reimbursed by the receiving agency or office for the salary and expenses of the employee for the period of assignment. Sec. 721. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Agriculture shall be used to transmit or otherwise make available to any non-Department of Agriculture employee questions or responses to questions that are a result of information requested for the appropriations hearing process. Sec. 722. None of the funds made available to the Department of Agriculture by this Act may be used to acquire new information technology systems or significant upgrades, as determined by the Office of the Chief Information Officer, without the approval of the Chief Information Officer and the concurrence of the Executive Information Technology Investment Review Board: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be transferred to the Office of the Chief Information Officer without the prior approval of the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress. Sec. 723. (a) None of the funds provided by this Act, or provided by previous Appropriations Acts to the agencies funded by this Act that remain available for obligation or expenditure in the current fiscal year, or provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the collection of fees available to the agencies funded by this Act, shall be available for obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of funds which: (1) creates new programs; (2) eliminates a program, project, or activity; (3) increases funds or personnel by any means for any project or activity for which funds have been denied or restricted; (4) relocates an office or employees; (5) reorganizes offices, programs, or activities; or (6) contracts out or privatizes any functions or activities presently performed by Federal employees; unless the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress are notified 15 days in advance of such reprogramming of funds. (b) None of the funds provided by this Act, or provided by previous Appropriations Acts to the agencies funded by this Act that remain available for obligation or expenditure in the current fiscal year, or provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the collection of fees available to the agencies funded by this Act, shall be available for obligation or expenditure for activities, programs, or projects through a reprogramming of funds in excess of $500,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, that: (1) augments existing programs, projects, or activities; (2) reduces by 10 percent funding for any existing program, project, or activity, or numbers of personnel by 10 percent as approved by Congress; or (3) results from any general savings from a reduction in personnel which would result in a change in existing programs, activities, or projects as approved by Congress; unless the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress are notified 15 days in advance of such reprogramming of funds. Sec. 724. With the exception of funds needed to administer and conduct oversight of grants awarded and obligations incurred prior to enactment of this Act, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other Act may be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out section 793 of Public Law 104-127, the Fund for Rural America (7 U.S.C. 2204f). [[Page H5687]] Sec. 725. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel who carry out an environmental quality incentives program authorized by chapter 4 of subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa et seq.) in excess of $174,000,000. Sec. 726. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise available to the Department of Agriculture in the current fiscal year or thereafter may be used to administer the provision of contract payments to a producer under the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.) for contract acreage on which wild rice is planted unless the contract payment is reduced by an acre for each contract acre planted to wild rice. Sec. 727. With the exception of funds needed to administer and conduct oversight of grants awarded and obligations incurred prior to enactment of this Act, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other Act may be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out the provisions of section 401 of Public Law 105- 185, the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems (7 U.S.C. 7621). Sec. 728. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act shall be used to carry out any commodity purchase program that would prohibit eligibility or participation by farmer-owned cooperatives. Sec. 729. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out a conservation farm option program, as authorized by section 1240M of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839bb). Sec. 730. None of the funds made available by this Act or any other Act for any fiscal year may be used to carry out section 203(h) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1622(h)) unless the Secretary of Agriculture inspects and certifies agricultural processing equipment, and imposes a fee for the inspection and certification, in a manner that is similar to the inspection and certification of agricultural products under that section, as determined by the Secretary: Provided, That this provision shall not affect the authority of the Secretary to carry out the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.), or the Egg Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 1031 et seq.). Sec. 731. None of the funds appropriated by this Act or any other Act shall be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel who prepare or submit appropriations language as part of the President's Budget submission to the Congress of the United States for programs under the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Subcommittees on Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies that assumes revenues or reflects a reduction from the previous year due to user fees proposals that have not been enacted into law prior to the submission of the Budget unless such Budget submission identifies which additional spending reductions should occur in the event the user fees proposals are not enacted prior to the date of the convening of a committee of conference for the fiscal year 2002 appropriations Act. Sec. 732. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act shall be used to carry out a Community Food Security program or any similar activity within the United States Department of Agriculture without the prior approval of the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress. Sec. 733. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other Act may be used to carry out provision of section 612 of Public Law 105-185. Mr. SKEEN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of title VII through page 72, line 4 be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Mexico? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to this portion of the bill? If not, the Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: Sec. 734. Hereafter no funds shall be used for the Kyoto Protocol, including such Kyoto mechanisms as carbon emissions trading schemes and the Clean Development Mechanism that are found solely in the Kyoto Protocol and nowhere in the laws of the United States. Amendment No. 58 Offered by Mr. Knollenberg Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 58 offered by Mr. Knollenberg: Page 72, line 5, strike Section 734 and Insert as Section 734: None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be used to propose or issue rules, regulations, decrees, or orders for the purpose of implementation, or in preparation for implementation, of the Kyoto Protocol which was adopted on December 11, 1997, in Kyoto, Japan, at the Third Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which has not been submitted to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification pursuant to article II, section 2, clause 2, of the United States Constitution, and which has not entered into force pursuant to article 25 of the Protocol; Provided further, the limitation established in this section not apply to any activity otherwise authorized by law. Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I want to state at the outset that this amendment makes the language for this Agriculture Appropriations bill, H.R. 4461, exactly the same, word-for-word, as the language in the energy and water appropriations bill, the same, word-for-word, that will be in the foreign operations bill that will come before this body this week. This language passed by voice vote with no opposition in about 1 minute just a few days ago. I would like to make four quick key points that are actually directed in this amendment. Number one, no agency can proceed with activities that are not specifically authorized and funded. Number two, no new authority is granted. Number three, neither the United Nations framework convention on climate control, nor the Kyoto Protocol are self-executing and specific implementing legislation is required for any regulation, program or initiative. Number four, since the Kyoto Protocol has not ratified and implementing legislation has not been approved by Congress, nothing contained exclusively in that treaty is funded. Mr. Chairman, I just want to urge all Members to support what is a bipartisan supported amendment, and it has been our effort to strengthen through clarification and offer consistently in all of these bills and we think that is the proper approach, it simplifies things, clarifies things and I think strengthens things. Mr. Chairman, in the morning two days ago, the House Appropriations Committee accepted my amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. That afternoon an amendment that the gentleman from Indiana Mr. Visclosky offered on the Energy and Water Appropriations bill was exactly the same wording as what I offered and what was accepted in the full House Appropriations Committee. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that this amendment regarding the Kyoto Protocol offered by me and then Mr. Visclosky and now again by me cannot, under the Rules of the House of Representatives, authorize anything whatsoever on this Agriculture Appropriations bill, H.R. 106- 4461, lest it be subject to a point of order. This amendment shall not go beyond clarification and recognition of the original and enduring meaning of the law that has existed for years now--specifically that no funds be spent on unauthorized activities for the fatally flawed and unratified Kyoto Protocol. Mr. Chairman, the whole nation deserves to hear the plea of this Administration for clarification of the Kyoto Protocol funding limitation. The plea came from the coordinator of all environmental policy for this Administration, George Frampton, in his position as Acting Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality. On March 1, 2000, on behalf of the Administration he stated before the VA/HUD appropriations subcommittee, and I quote, ``Just to finish our dialogue here [about the Kyoto Protocol funding limitation], my point was that it is the very uncertainty about the scope of the language . . . that gives rise to our wanting to not have the continuation of this uncertainty created next year.'' Mr. Chairman, I agree with Mr. Obey when he stated to the Administration, ``You're nuts!'' upon learning of the fatally flawed Kyoto Protocol that Vice President Gore negotiated. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Congress for the focus on the activities of this Administration, both authorized and unauthorized. This amendment shall be read to be a clarification that is fully consistent with the provision that has been signed by President Clinton in six current appropriations laws. A few key points must be reviewed: First, no agency can proceed with activities that are not specifically authorized and funded. Mr. Chairman, there has been an effort to confuse the long-standing support that I as well as other strong supporters of the provision on the Kyoto Protocol have regarding important energy supply and energy conservation program. For example, there has never been a question about strong support for voluntary programs, development of clean coal technology, and improvements in energy conservation for all sectors of our economy. Notwithstanding arguments that have been made on the floor in recent days, I have never, ever tried to undermine, eliminate, delete, or delay any programs that have been specifically authorized and funded. Second, no new authority is granted. [[Page H5688]] Third, since neither the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change nor the Kyoto Protocol are self executing, specific implementing legislation is required for any regulation, program, or initiative. Fourth, since the Kyoto Protocol has not been ratified and implementing legislation has not been approved by Congress, nothing contained exclusively in that treaty is funded. Mr. Chairman, as you know, the Administration negotiated the Kyoto Climate Change Protocol some time ago but has decided not to submit this treaty to the United States Senate for ratification. All indications from this Administration lead to the conclusion that they have no intention of ever submitting the Kyoto Protocol to the Senate. Pursuant to Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, the President only has the power to make treaties ``by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.'' It is therefore unconstitutional for the President to make a treaty in contravention of the Advice of the Senate. The unanimous (95-0) advice of the Senate was given in Senate Resolution 105-98, referred to as the Byrd-Hagel Resolution. Likewise it is therefore unconstitutional for the President to make a treaty with no intention of ever seeking the consent of the Senate. The Protocol places severe restrictions on the United States while exempting most countries, including China, India, Mexico, and Brazil, from taking measures to reduce carbon dioxide equivalent emissions. The Administration undertook this course of action despite unanimous support in the United States Senate for the Senate's advice in the form of the Byrd-Hagel resolution calling for commitments by all nations and on the condition that the Protocol not adversely impact the economy of the United States. We are also concerned that actions taken by Federal agencies constitute the implementation of this treaty before its submission to Congress as required by the Constitution of the United States. Clearly, Congress cannot allow any agency to attempt to interpret current law to avoid constitutional due process. Clearly, we would not need this debate if the Administration would send the treaty to the Senate. The treaty would be disposed of and we could return to a more productive process for addressing our energy future. During numerous hearings on this issue, the administration has not been willing to engage in this debate. For example, it took months to extract the documents the administration used for its flawed economics. The message is clear--there is no interest in sharing with the American public the real price tag of this policy. A balanced public debate will be required because there is much to be learned about the issue before we commit this country to unprecedented curbs on energy use while most of the world is exempt. Worse yet, some treaty supporters see this as only a first step to elimination of fossil energy production. Unfortunately, the Administration has chosen to keep this issue out of the current debate. I look forward to working to assure that the administration and EPA understand the boundaries of the current law. It will be up to Congress to assure that backdoor implementation of the Kyoto Protocol does not occur. In that regard I would like to include in the Record a letter with legislative history of the Clean Air Act reported by Congressman John Dingell who was the Chairman of the House Conference on the Clearn Air Act amendments of 1990. No one knows the Clean Air Act like Congressman Dingell. He makes clear, and I quote, ``Congress has not enacted implementing legislation authorizing EPA or any other agency to regulate greenhouse gases.'' In closing, I look forward to the report language to clarify what activities are and are not authorized. Mr. Chairman, I include the following letter for the Record: October 5, 1999. Hon. David M. McIntosh, Chairman, Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs, Committee on Government Reform, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that you have asked, based on discussions between our staffs, about the disposition by the House-Senate conferees of the amendments in 1990 to the Clean Air Act (CAA) regarding greenhouse gases such as methane and carbon dioxide. In making this inquiry, you call my attention to an April 10, 1998 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) memorandum entitled `EPA's Authority to Regulate Pollutants Emitted by Electric Power Generation Sources' and an October 12, 1998 memorandum entitled `The Authority of EPA to Regulate Carbon Dioxide Under the Clean Air Act' prepared for the National Mining Association. The latter memorandum discusses the legislative history of the 1990 amendments. First, the House-passed bill (H.R. 3030) never included any provision regarding the regulation of any greenhouse gas, such as methane or carbon dioxide, nor did the bill address global climate change. The House, however, did include provisions aimed at implementing the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Second, as to the Senate version (S. 1630) of the proposed amendments, the October 12, 1998 memorandum correctly points out that the Senate did address greenhouse gas matters and global warming, along with provisions implementing the Montreal Protocol. Nevertheless, only Montreal Protocol related provisions were agreed to by the House-Senate conferees (see Conf. Rept. 101-952, Oct. 26, 1990). However, I should point out that Public Law 101-549 of November 15, 1990, which contains the 1990 amendments to the CAA, includes some provisions, such as sections 813, 817 and 819-821, that were enacted as free-standing provisions separate from the CAA. Although the Public Law often refers to the `Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,' the Public Law does not specify that reference as the `short title' of all of the provisions included the Public Law. One of these free-standing provisions, section 821, entitled `Information Gathering on Greenhouse Gases contributing to Global Climate Change' appears in the United States code as a `note' (at 42 U.S.C. 7651k). It requires regulations by the EPA to `monitor carbon dioxide emissions' from `all affected sources subject to title V' of the CAA and specifies that the emissions are to be reported to the EPA. That section does not designate carbon dioxide as a `pollutant' for any purpose. Finally, Title IX of the Conference Report, entitled `Clean Air Research,' was primarily negotiated at the time by the House and Senate Science Committees, which had no regulatory jurisdiction under House-Senate Rules. This title amended section 103 of the CAA by adding new subsections (c) through (k). New subsection (g), entitled `Pollution Prevention and Control,' calls for `non-regulatory strategies and technologies for air pollution prevention.' While it refers, as noted in the EPA memorandum, to carbon dioxide as a `pollutant,' House and Senate conferees never agreed to designate carbon dioxide as a pollutant for regulatory or other purposes. Based on my review of this history and my recollection of the discussions, I would have difficulty concluding that the House-Senate conferees, who rejected the Senate regulatory provisions (with the exception of the above-referenced section 821), contemplated regulating greenhouse gas emissions or addressing global warming under the Clean Air Act. Shortly after enactment of Public Law 101-549, the United Nations General Assembly established in December 1990 the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee that ultimately led to the Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was ratified by the United States after advice and consent by the Senate. That Convention is, of course, not self-executing, and the Congress has not enacted implementing legislation authorizing EPA or any other agency to regulate greenhouse gases. I hope that this is responsive. With best wishes, Sincerely, John D. Dingell, Ranking Member. Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Knollenberg amendment. His characterization of the language is absolutely correct. It is the same as energy and water, it is the same as full committee has reported for foreign operations and essentially the same intent as Veterans Administration, HUD and Urban Development as well. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate his work in a bipartisan fashion and, again, I agree with the premise of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), Kyoto is not the law of the land, but we want to ensure that where we have authorized programs and where there is duplicate language that the law can also be followed. I do appreciate the initiative of the gentleman and would ask my colleagues to support his amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg). The amendment was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: Sec. 735. After taking any action involving the seizure, quarantine, treatment, destruction, or disposal of wheat infested with karnal bunt, the Secretary of Agriculture shall compensate the producers and handlers for economic losses incurred as the result of the action not later than 45 days after receipt of a claim that includes all appropriate paperwork. Sec. 736. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Town of Lloyd, New York and the Town of Harris, New York shall be eligible for loans and grants provided through the Rural Community Advancement Program. {time} 1630 Amendment No. 56 Offered by Mr. Boyd Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. [[Page H5689]] The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 56 offered by Mr. Boyd: Page 72, lines 18 and 19, strike ``Town of Harris'' and insert ``Town of Thompson''. Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure that we have the amendment correct. It should be the amendment that changes the ``Town of Harris'' to the ``Town of Thompson.'' The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida is correct. Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, it is a technical amendment. I ask support for the amendment. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I accept the gentleman's amendment and recommend that the House do so as well. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd). The amendment was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read: The Clerk read as follows: Sec. 737. Hereafter, notwithstanding section 502(h)(7) of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1472(h)(7)), the fee collected by the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to a guaranteed loan under such section 502(h) at the time of the issuance of such guarantee may be in an amount equal to not more than 2 percent of the principal obligation of the loan. Sec. 738. The Secretary of Agriculture may use funds available under this and subsequent appropriation Acts to employ individuals to perform services outside the United States as determined by the agencies to be necessary or appropriate for carrying out programs and activities abroad; and such employment actions, hereafter referred to as Personal Service Agreements (PSA), are authorized to be negotiated, the terms of the PSA to be prescribed and work to be performed, where necessary, without regard to such statutory provisions as related to the negotiation, making and performance of contracts and performance of work in the United States. Individuals employed under a PSA to perform such services outside the United States shall not by virtue of such employment be considered employees of the United States Government for purposes of any law administered by the Office of Personnel Management. Such individuals may be considered employees within the meaning of the Federal Employee Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. 8101 et seq. Further, that Government service credit shall be accrued for the time employed under a PSA should the individual later be hired into a permanent U.S. Government position within FAS or another U.S. Government agency if their authorities so permit. Sec. 739. (a) In General.--Section 141 of the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7251) is amended-- (1) in subsection (b)(4), by striking ``and 2000''; and inserting ``through 2001''; and (2) in subsection (h), by striking ``2000'' each place it appears and inserting ``2001''. (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 142(e) of the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7252(e)) is amended by striking ``2001'' and inserting ``2002''. Sec. 740. In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated or made available by this Act, $4,000,000 is appropriated for the purpose of providing Bill Emerson and Mickey Leland Hunger Fellowships through the Congressional Hunger Center. Sec. 741. Notwithstanding section 718, title VII of Public Law 105-277, as amended, funds made available hereafter in annual appropriations acts may be used to provide market access program assistance pursuant to section 203 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978, as amended (7 U.S.C. 5623), to any agricultural commodity as defined in section 102 of the Agriculture Trade Act of 1978, as amended (7 U.S.C. 5602), except for products specifically excluded by section 1302, title I of Public Law 103-66, as amended, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. Point of Order Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order on this section restoring the eligibility of mink for MAP funds. The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members who wish to be heard on the point of order that this section constitutes legislation? The Chair finds, that this provision explicitly supersedes existing law in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained, and the provision is stricken from the bill. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as f

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
(House of Representatives - July 10, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H5683-H5718] AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 538 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 4461. {time} 1602 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4461) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, with Mr. Nussle in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole House rose on Thursday, June 29, 2000, the bill was open for amendment from page 57, line 12, to page 58, line 8. Are there further amendments to that portion of the bill? Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a series of discussions with the distinguished gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen). Mr. Chairman, as we know, the Senate bill provides direct payments to dairy farmers estimated at $443 million to offset the record low prices we have seen for much of the past year. I would simply ask the chairman if he would be willing to work with me to ensure that direct payments for dairy farmers are included in the bill when it emerges from conference. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to work with the gentleman from Wisconsin. I find that we agree more often than not on the specifics of dairy policy, and would point to the last 2 years of economic assistance payments we have jointly inserted into the agriculture appropriations conference report as proof. Accordingly, I will be pleased to carry out our tradition of working together on dairy producer assistance, when and if we ever get to conference. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. Let me turn to another subject, that of ultrafiltered milk. It seems there is always some new issue popping up in the dairy area. There are growing fears about the damaging impact on domestic dairy producers from imports of dry ultrafiltered or UF milk. Ultrafiltration is an important technology widely used in cheese plants for about 15 years to remove water, lactose, and minerals and allow manufacturers to manipulate the ingredients in cheese to arrive at the desired finished product. The use of liquid UF milk from another location has been approved by FDA on a case-by-case basis, but there is another problem. The problem is the threat of unlimited imports of dry UF milk from places like New Zealand following a petition to FDA earlier this year by the National Cheese Institute to change the standards of identity for cheese. I understand that there are no quotas or tariffs on this product, which is currently used in bakery mixes, ice cream, and other products that do not have the strict standards of identity that cheese has. There have also been newspaper reports suggesting that dry UF milk is already being imported for use in American cheese plants, in violation of FDA regulations. We need to know what the facts are so we can develop an appropriate response. At a minimum, we need to understand first how much UF milk is coming into the country and what it is used for. I would ask the chairman of the subcommittee if he would be willing to work with us to get answers to those questions through the GAO and other sources. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I, too, have an interest in ultrafiltered milk. I believe it is prudent to have empirical facts in order to understand the specifics of a somewhat muddled portion of the dairy production and cheese-making process. I would offer to the gentleman that we will jointly direct either the GAO or the committee S staff to conduct a factual investigation into how much UF milk is produced in this country and how much is being imported and what it is used for. At that time, and with the facts on our side, I am confident that we will be able to address the issue in an intelligent and productive manner. Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman. Now I would like to turn to another subject, Mr. Chairman. That is the Dairy Export Incentive Program. I am concerned that the USDA is not being aggressive enough in encouraging dairy exports through the Dairy Export Incentive Program, or DEIP, which allows us to compete in world markets with highly subsidized exports in the European Union. About 10 percent of DEIP contracts are apparently canceled, I understand due mainly to price undercutting by our competitors. For whatever the reason, we apparently have about 40,000 metric tons of canceled nonfat dry milk contracts dating back to June of 1995. This canceled tonnage can be reprogrammed for export by allowing exporters to rebid for them, but the Foreign Agricultural Service appears reluctant to do that, perhaps fearing that it may be taken to the WTO court by the European Union. Mr. Chairman, as we know, DEIP saves money. It is cheaper to export surplus nonfat dry milk than it is for USDA to buy it and store it. Removing this product from the domestic market would have a beneficial impact on dairy prices. As such, again, I would ask the chair of the subcommittee to help me convince USDA to propose a solution to resolve the problem by the time we have reached conference on this bill, one that might include establishing a procedure for automatic rebidding of canceled tonnage. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, again, I would be pleased to work with the gentleman to address his concerns, as they are shared by myself and many others. It seems the administration has been entirely too willing to roll over to our competitors without looking to the interests of America's farmers and ranchers first, and anything we can do to reverse the trend will be a step forward. Mr. OBEY. I thank the chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise the question of cranberries. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has expired. (By unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was allowed to proceed for 4 additional minutes.) Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, with respect to that product, cranberry growers, as we know, like all farmers today, it seems they are in dire straits due to overproduction, massive overproduction and lower prices. It costs about $35 per barrel to produce cranberries. Some growers in my district are getting as little as $9 or $10 a barrel for their crop. The USDA recently announced its support for industry-proposed volume controls that are desperately needed to get a handle on overproduction. That is part of the solution, but will add to the farm income problems those cranberry growers are facing, so it seems to me we have to look for more things that can be done. Another part of the solution might be for USDA to purchase surplus products. USDA has been very responsive so far looking for opportunities to purchase surplus product, but much more needs to be done if we are to restore balance to supply and demand. [[Page H5684]] As we know, cranberries are among the specialty crops eligible for purchase by the Secretary, with $200 million provided from the recently-passed crop insurance bill. Would the chairman work with me to urge USDA to aggressively use the authority it has to purchase surplus cranberry products in a way that will make a significant difference to the industry? Mr. SKEEN. If the gentleman will yield further, I will be glad to work with the gentleman towards that end. Mr. OBEY. I would also appreciate it if the chairman would also help us to explore the possibility of helping growers through the current difficult times with direct payments. The Cranberry Industry estimates that $20 million will improve income by about $3 to $4 per barrel for each grower. This bill already includes $100 million direct assistance to apple and potato growers. We have helped pork farmers, dairy farmers, wheat, corn, cotton, rice, oilseeds, and many others. Would the chairman of the subcommittee be willing to work with me to ensure that America's cranberry growers receive the same kind of consideration in this respect that many other farmers have received? Mr. SKEEN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, again, I would be very happy to work with the gentleman, as I, too, believe that specialty crops do not receive the support and attention that they deserve. Cranberries would definitely fall into that category. Mr. OBEY. I thank the chairman, and I appreciate his consideration. Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, recently I introduced H.R. 4652, the Quality Cheese Act of 2000. This bipartisan bill would prohibit the FDA from allowing the use of dry ultrafiltered milk in the making of natural cheese. My reason for introducing the bill was simple. Dry ultrafiltered milk, which is a milk derivative, can come in the United States virtually duty-free. It can take the place of domestically produced milk in cheese vats and the consumer cannot tell the difference. Using imported dry ultrafiltered milk would also undercut our domestic dairy farmers' market for their milk. My Wisconsin dairy farmers are already receiving the lowest price for their milk in over 20 years. We cannot allow their market to be further eroded. There have been reports in farm publications that there are large volumes of dry ultrafiltered milk currently being imported. That is perfectly legal, but we do not know what the dry ultrafiltered milk is being used for. If this dry ultrafiltered milk is being used in natural cheese-making, it is being used illegally, to the detriment of consumers and the dairy farmers I represent. It is my hope that the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations, will work with myself and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to find an answer to this important question. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield? Ms. BALDWIN. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, as the gentlewoman knows, I also have an interest in ultrafiltered milk, as I recently discussed with the gentlewoman's colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). I believe it is wise to understand the specifics of a somewhat muddled segment of the dairy production and cheese-making production. Accordingly, we have to agree to jointly direct either the GAO or the subcommittee's S staff to conduct a factual investigation into how much UF milk is produced in this country and how much is being imported and what is it used for, and at that time, with the facts on our side, I am confident that we will be able to address the issue in an intelligent and productive manner. I appreciate the gentlewoman's concerns, and look forward to working with her on behalf of the Nation's dairy industry. Ms. BALDWIN. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Chairman. Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 38 offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio: Page 58, line 4, insert after the colon the following: ``Provided further, That $3,000,000 may be for activities carried out pursuant to section 512 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to new animal drugs, in addition to the amounts otherwise available under this heading for such activities:''. {time} 1615 Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, this amendment concerns antibiotic resistance from the use of antibiotics in livestock. I would like to start with a story. Imagine your 7-year-old daughter is very sick from food poisoning. You take her to the hospital and antibiotics do not help. In a week, she dies a painful death. The autopsy shows that her body is riddled with E. coli bacteria which ate away at her organs from her brain down. This is a true story, and it happened to a family in northeast Ohio 2 years ago. We thought we were winning the war against infectious diseases. With the introduction of antibiotics in the 1940s, humans gained an overwhelming advantage in the fight against bacteria that cause infectious diseases, but the war is not over. Mr. Chairman, 2 weeks ago, the World Health Organization issued a ringing warning against antibiotic resistance. Around the world, microbes are mutating at an alarming rate into the new strains that fail to respond to drugs. Dr. Marcos Esponal of the World Health Organization said, ``we already have lost some of the current good antibiotics, streptomycin for TB; it's almost lost. Chloroquin for malaria, it's lost; penicillin, nobody uses it now; if we keep the same pace, we will be losing other potent and powerful drugs. So a window of opportunity is closing, and I would say if we don't act now, in 5 to 10 years, we will have a major crisis''; words from the World Health Organization. We need to develop, Mr. Chairman, new antibiotics but it is too soon obviously to give up on the ones we have. By using antibiotics and antimicrobials more wisely and more sparingly, we can slow down antibiotic resistance. We need to change the way drugs are given to people to be sure, but we also need to look at the way drugs are given to animals. According to the WHO, 50 percent of all antibiotics are used in agriculture, both for animals and for plants. In the U.S., livestock producers use drugs to treat sick herds and flocks legitimately. They also feed a steady diet of antibiotics for healthy livestock so they will gain weight more quickly and be ready for market sooner. Many of these drugs are the same ones used to treat infections in people, including tetracycline. Prolonged exposure to antibiotics in farm animals provide a breeding ground science tells us for resistance strains of E. coli, salmonella and other bacteria harmful to humans. When transferred to people through food, it can cause dangerous infections. Last week, an interagency task force issued a draft Public Health Action Plan to combat antimicrobial resistance. The plan provides a blueprint for specific, coordinated Federal actions. A top priority action item in the draft plan highlights work already underway at the Food and Drug Administration's Center for Veterinary Medicine. In December of 1998, the FDA issued a proposed framework for evaluating and regulating new animal drugs in light of their contribution to antibiotic resistance in humans. The agency proposes to evaluate the drugs on the basis of their importance in human medicine and the potential exposure of humans to resistant bacteria that come from animals. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would direct $3 million toward the Center for Veterinary Medicine's work on antibiotic resistance related to animal drugs. CVM Director Sundloff has stated that antibiotic resistance is the Center's top priority. However, the framework document states the agency [[Page H5685]] will look first at approvals for new animal drugs and will look at drugs already in use in animals as time and resources permit. We think an additional $3 million would give a significant boost to the ability of the Center for Veterinary Medicine to move forward on antibiotic resistance. Our amendment directs FDA to shift these funds from within the agency, while leaving the decision on the sources of the offset to the agency itself. Please note the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Chairman, has recommended a $53 million budget increase for FDA. Given this increase, we believe the agency can free up $3 million of that increase for its work on antibiotic resistance without harming other programs. Mr. Chairman, I ask for his support, and ask for support of Members of the House for this amendment. The lives of our young children and our elderly parents, the people most vulnerable to food-borne illness, may be at stake. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, it provides an additional $3 million for a particular FDA activity, presumably to be funded at the expense of other FDA priorities. I understand the forthright interest of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) in this situation and what the gentleman wants to do. The committee has fully funded the President's fiscal year 2001 budget request for new animal drug review, as can be seen on page 60 of the committee report on this bill. The President requested $62,761,000 for the animal drugs and feeds program, an increase of $14,048,000 over fiscal year 2000. The committee fully funded the administration's request, which is a generous 22 percent increase. Since the request was fully funded, I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same. Please vote no on the amendment. Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and rise to support the Brown amendment to increase the antibiotic resistance funding by $3 million. Earlier this month, the World Health Organization issued a strong warning against antibiotic resistance. If I may quote from the WHO, they said, ``the world may only have a decade or two to make optimal use of many of the medicines presently available to stop infectious diseases. We are literally in a race against time to bring levels of infectious disease down worldwide before the disease wears the drugs down first''; that is by Mr. David Heymann, executive director of the World Health Organization's communicable disease program. Mr. Chairman, while many factors contribute to antibiotic resistance, an important cause is the overuse of antibiotics in livestock, both for treating disease and promoting faster growth. Many livestock receive a steady diet of antibiotics that are used in human medicine, especially tetracycline and penicillin. Antibiotic-resistant microbes are then transferred from animals to humans primarily in food, causing infection from salmonella and E. coli that are difficult or impossible to treat. Children and the elderly are most at risk for serious illness or death. The World Health Organization recommends reducing antibiotic use in animals to protect our own human health. The Food and Drug Administration's Center for Veterinary Medicine, CVM, is taking steps to reduce the problem of antibiotic resistance from drug use in livestock. The agency's plan primarily addresses new animal drugs and will address drugs currently in use when resources permit. That is where the Brown amendment comes in. This amendment would increase funding for the Food and Drug Administration's Center for Veterinary Medicine by $3 million for activities related to antibiotic resistance. Since the committee is recommending that the FDA receive an increase of $53 million, the Brown amendment would simply direct the agency to allocate an additional $3 million from the $53 million for this very important work. Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, to support the Brown amendment and this very important program. Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in support of the Brown amendment. Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring to the attention of the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) and the body that this certainly has been described as a very serious issue in America today. I appreciate the opposition of the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) to it on the basis of the funding. We do not know exactly where the funding is coming from, and I also understand that this is an issue that was not brought to the attention of the committee or subcommittee prior to today for increased funding. I would like to let the body know that there is some funding in the food safety initiative and the FDA has the jurisdiction, or the responsibility, of looking at these kinds of issues and monitoring this, and we are absolutely not doing a sufficient job. I think that we do need some additional resources and efforts in this area. I would encourage, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) to try to work with us to see if we could not find some additional funding as we move into conference, but I would like to support the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown). The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown). The amendment was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: In addition, mammography user fees authorized by 42 U.S.C. 263(b) may be credited to this account, to remain available until expended. In addition, export certification user fees authorized by 21 U.S.C. 381, as amended, may be credited to this account, to remain available until expended. Buildings and Facilities For plans, construction, repair, improvement, extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities of or used by the Food and Drug Administration, where not otherwise provided, $11,350,000, to remain available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b). INDEPENDENT AGENCIES Commodity Futures Trading Commission For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), including the purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles; the rental of space (to include multiple year leases) in the District of Columbia and elsewhere; and not to exceed $25,000 for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109, $69,000,000, including not to exceed $2,000 for official reception and representation expenses: Provided, That for fiscal year 2001 and thereafter, the Commission is authorized to charge reasonable fees to attendees of Commission sponsored educational events and symposia to cover the Commission's costs of providing those events and symposia, and notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, said fees shall be credited to this account, to be available without further appropriation. Farm Credit Administration Limitation on Administrative Expenses Not to exceed $36,800,000 (from assessments collected from farm credit institutions and from the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation) shall be obligated during the current fiscal year for administrative expenses as authorized under 12 U.S.C. 2249: Provided, That this limitation shall not apply to expenses associated with receiverships. TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. 701. Within the unit limit of cost fixed by law, appropriations and authorizations made for the Department of Agriculture for the current fiscal year under this Act shall be available for the purchase, in addition to those specifically provided for, of not to exceed 389 passenger motor vehicles, of which 385 shall be for replacement only, and for the hire of such vehicles. Sec. 702. Funds in this Act available to the Department of Agriculture shall be available for uniforms or allowances therefor as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902). Sec. 703. Not less than $1,500,000 of the appropriations of the Department of Agriculture in this Act for research and service work authorized by sections 1 and 10 of the Act of June 29, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 427, 427i; commonly known as the Bankhead-Jones Act), subtitle A of title II and section 302 of the Act of August 14, 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq.), and chapter 63 of title 31, United States Code, shall be available for contracting in accordance with such Acts and chapter. Sec. 704. The Secretary may transfer funds provided under this Act and other available unobligated balances of the Department of Agriculture to the Working Capital Fund for the acquisition of plant and capital equipment necessary for the delivery of financial, administrative, and information technology services: Provided, That none of the funds made available by this Act or any other Act shall be transferred to the Working Capital Fund without the prior approval of the agency administrator. Sec. 705. New obligational authority provided for the following appropriation items in this Act shall remain available until expended: Animal and Plant Health Inspection [[Page H5686]] Service, the contingency fund to meet emergency conditions, fruit fly program, integrated systems acquisition project, boll weevil program, up to 10 percent of the screwworm program, and up to $2,000,000 for costs associated with colocating regional offices; Food Safety and Inspection Service, field automation and information management project; funds appropriated for rental payments; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, funds for competitive research grants (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)) and funds for the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund; Farm Service Agency, salaries and expenses funds made available to county committees; Foreign Agricultural Service, middle-income country training program and up to $2,000,000 of the Foreign Agricultural Service appropriation solely for the purpose of offsetting fluctuations in international currency exchange rates, subject to documentation by the Foreign Agricultural Service. Sec. 706. No part of any appropriation contained in this Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein. Sec. 707. Not to exceed $50,000 of the appropriations available to the Department of Agriculture in this Act shall be available to provide appropriate orientation and language training pursuant to section 606C of the Act of August 28, 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1766b; commonly known as the Agricultural Act of 1954). Sec. 708. No funds appropriated by this Act may be used to pay negotiated indirect cost rates on cooperative agreements or similar arrangements between the United States Department of Agriculture and nonprofit institutions in excess of 10 percent of the total direct cost of the agreement when the purpose of such cooperative arrangements is to carry out programs of mutual interest between the two parties. This does not preclude appropriate payment of indirect costs on grants and contracts with such institutions when such indirect costs are computed on a similar basis for all agencies for which appropriations are provided in this Act. Sec. 709. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, commodities acquired by the Department in connection with the Commodity Credit Corporation and section 32 price support operations may be used, as authorized by law (15 U.S.C. 714c and 7 U.S.C. 612c), to provide commodities to individuals in cases of hardship as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture. Sec. 710. None of the funds in this Act shall be available to restrict the authority of the Commodity Credit Corporation to lease space for its own use or to lease space on behalf of other agencies of the Department of Agriculture when such space will be jointly occupied. Sec. 711. None of the funds in this Act shall be available to pay indirect costs charged against competitive agricultural research, education, or extension grant awards issued by the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service that exceed 19 percent of total Federal funds provided under each award: Provided, That notwithstanding section 1462 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3310), funds provided by this Act for grants awarded competitively by the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service shall be available to pay full allowable indirect costs for each grant awarded under section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638). Sec. 712. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, all loan levels provided in this Act shall be considered estimates, not limitations. Sec. 713. Appropriations to the Department of Agriculture for the cost of direct and guaranteed loans made available in the current fiscal year shall remain available until expended to cover obligations made in the current fiscal year for the following accounts: the rural development loan fund program account; the rural telephone bank program account; the rural electrification and telecommunications loans program account; the rural housing insurance fund program account; and the rural economic development loans program account. Sec. 714. Such sums as may be necessary for the current fiscal year pay raises for programs funded by this Act shall be absorbed within the levels appropriated by this Act. Sec. 715. Notwithstanding chapter 63 of title 31, United States Code, marketing services of the Agricultural Marketing Service; the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration; the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; and the food safety activities of the Food Safety and Inspection Service may use cooperative agreements to reflect a relationship between the Agricultural Marketing Service; the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration; the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; or the Food Safety and Inspection Service and a State or Cooperator to carry out agricultural marketing programs, to carry out programs to protect the Nation's animal and plant resources, or to carry out educational programs or special studies to improve the safety of the Nation's food supply. Sec. 716. Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including provisions of law requiring competition), the Secretary of Agriculture may hereafter enter into cooperative agreements (which may provide for the acquisition of goods or services, including personal services) with a State, political subdivision, or agency thereof, a public or private agency, organization, or any other person, if the Secretary determines that the objectives of the agreement will: (1) serve a mutual interest of the parties to the agreement in carrying out the programs administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service; and (2) all parties will contribute resources to the accomplishment of these objectives: Provided, That Commodity Credit Corporation funds obligated for such purposes shall not exceed the level obligated by the Commodity Credit Corporation for such purposes in fiscal year 1998. Sec. 717. None of the funds in this Act may be used to retire more than 5 percent of the Class A stock of the Rural Telephone Bank or to maintain any account or subaccount within the accounting records of the Rural Telephone Bank the creation of which has not specifically been authorized by statute: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this Act may be used to transfer to the Treasury or to the Federal Financing Bank any unobligated balance of the Rural Telephone Bank telephone liquidating account which is in excess of current requirements and such balance shall receive interest as set forth for financial accounts in section 505(c) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990. Sec. 718. Of the funds made available by this Act, not more than $1,500,000 shall be used to cover necessary expenses of activities related to all advisory committees, panels, commissions, and task forces of the Department of Agriculture, except for panels used to comply with negotiated rule makings and panels used to evaluate competitively awarded grants. Sec. 719. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used to carry out section 410 of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 679a) or section 30 of the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 471). Sec. 720. No employee of the Department of Agriculture may be detailed or assigned from an agency or office funded by this Act to any other agency or office of the Department for more than 30 days unless the individual's employing agency or office is fully reimbursed by the receiving agency or office for the salary and expenses of the employee for the period of assignment. Sec. 721. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Agriculture shall be used to transmit or otherwise make available to any non-Department of Agriculture employee questions or responses to questions that are a result of information requested for the appropriations hearing process. Sec. 722. None of the funds made available to the Department of Agriculture by this Act may be used to acquire new information technology systems or significant upgrades, as determined by the Office of the Chief Information Officer, without the approval of the Chief Information Officer and the concurrence of the Executive Information Technology Investment Review Board: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be transferred to the Office of the Chief Information Officer without the prior approval of the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress. Sec. 723. (a) None of the funds provided by this Act, or provided by previous Appropriations Acts to the agencies funded by this Act that remain available for obligation or expenditure in the current fiscal year, or provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the collection of fees available to the agencies funded by this Act, shall be available for obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of funds which: (1) creates new programs; (2) eliminates a program, project, or activity; (3) increases funds or personnel by any means for any project or activity for which funds have been denied or restricted; (4) relocates an office or employees; (5) reorganizes offices, programs, or activities; or (6) contracts out or privatizes any functions or activities presently performed by Federal employees; unless the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress are notified 15 days in advance of such reprogramming of funds. (b) None of the funds provided by this Act, or provided by previous Appropriations Acts to the agencies funded by this Act that remain available for obligation or expenditure in the current fiscal year, or provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the collection of fees available to the agencies funded by this Act, shall be available for obligation or expenditure for activities, programs, or projects through a reprogramming of funds in excess of $500,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, that: (1) augments existing programs, projects, or activities; (2) reduces by 10 percent funding for any existing program, project, or activity, or numbers of personnel by 10 percent as approved by Congress; or (3) results from any general savings from a reduction in personnel which would result in a change in existing programs, activities, or projects as approved by Congress; unless the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress are notified 15 days in advance of such reprogramming of funds. Sec. 724. With the exception of funds needed to administer and conduct oversight of grants awarded and obligations incurred prior to enactment of this Act, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other Act may be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out section 793 of Public Law 104-127, the Fund for Rural America (7 U.S.C. 2204f). [[Page H5687]] Sec. 725. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel who carry out an environmental quality incentives program authorized by chapter 4 of subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa et seq.) in excess of $174,000,000. Sec. 726. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise available to the Department of Agriculture in the current fiscal year or thereafter may be used to administer the provision of contract payments to a producer under the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.) for contract acreage on which wild rice is planted unless the contract payment is reduced by an acre for each contract acre planted to wild rice. Sec. 727. With the exception of funds needed to administer and conduct oversight of grants awarded and obligations incurred prior to enactment of this Act, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other Act may be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out the provisions of section 401 of Public Law 105- 185, the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems (7 U.S.C. 7621). Sec. 728. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act shall be used to carry out any commodity purchase program that would prohibit eligibility or participation by farmer-owned cooperatives. Sec. 729. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out a conservation farm option program, as authorized by section 1240M of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839bb). Sec. 730. None of the funds made available by this Act or any other Act for any fiscal year may be used to carry out section 203(h) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1622(h)) unless the Secretary of Agriculture inspects and certifies agricultural processing equipment, and imposes a fee for the inspection and certification, in a manner that is similar to the inspection and certification of agricultural products under that section, as determined by the Secretary: Provided, That this provision shall not affect the authority of the Secretary to carry out the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.), or the Egg Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 1031 et seq.). Sec. 731. None of the funds appropriated by this Act or any other Act shall be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel who prepare or submit appropriations language as part of the President's Budget submission to the Congress of the United States for programs under the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Subcommittees on Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies that assumes revenues or reflects a reduction from the previous year due to user fees proposals that have not been enacted into law prior to the submission of the Budget unless such Budget submission identifies which additional spending reductions should occur in the event the user fees proposals are not enacted prior to the date of the convening of a committee of conference for the fiscal year 2002 appropriations Act. Sec. 732. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act shall be used to carry out a Community Food Security program or any similar activity within the United States Department of Agriculture without the prior approval of the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress. Sec. 733. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other Act may be used to carry out provision of section 612 of Public Law 105-185. Mr. SKEEN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of title VII through page 72, line 4 be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Mexico? There was no objection. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to this portion of the bill? If not, the Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: Sec. 734. Hereafter no funds shall be used for the Kyoto Protocol, including such Kyoto mechanisms as carbon emissions trading schemes and the Clean Development Mechanism that are found solely in the Kyoto Protocol and nowhere in the laws of the United States. Amendment No. 58 Offered by Mr. Knollenberg Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 58 offered by Mr. Knollenberg: Page 72, line 5, strike Section 734 and Insert as Section 734: None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be used to propose or issue rules, regulations, decrees, or orders for the purpose of implementation, or in preparation for implementation, of the Kyoto Protocol which was adopted on December 11, 1997, in Kyoto, Japan, at the Third Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which has not been submitted to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification pursuant to article II, section 2, clause 2, of the United States Constitution, and which has not entered into force pursuant to article 25 of the Protocol; Provided further, the limitation established in this section not apply to any activity otherwise authorized by law. Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I want to state at the outset that this amendment makes the language for this Agriculture Appropriations bill, H.R. 4461, exactly the same, word-for-word, as the language in the energy and water appropriations bill, the same, word-for-word, that will be in the foreign operations bill that will come before this body this week. This language passed by voice vote with no opposition in about 1 minute just a few days ago. I would like to make four quick key points that are actually directed in this amendment. Number one, no agency can proceed with activities that are not specifically authorized and funded. Number two, no new authority is granted. Number three, neither the United Nations framework convention on climate control, nor the Kyoto Protocol are self-executing and specific implementing legislation is required for any regulation, program or initiative. Number four, since the Kyoto Protocol has not ratified and implementing legislation has not been approved by Congress, nothing contained exclusively in that treaty is funded. Mr. Chairman, I just want to urge all Members to support what is a bipartisan supported amendment, and it has been our effort to strengthen through clarification and offer consistently in all of these bills and we think that is the proper approach, it simplifies things, clarifies things and I think strengthens things. Mr. Chairman, in the morning two days ago, the House Appropriations Committee accepted my amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. That afternoon an amendment that the gentleman from Indiana Mr. Visclosky offered on the Energy and Water Appropriations bill was exactly the same wording as what I offered and what was accepted in the full House Appropriations Committee. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that this amendment regarding the Kyoto Protocol offered by me and then Mr. Visclosky and now again by me cannot, under the Rules of the House of Representatives, authorize anything whatsoever on this Agriculture Appropriations bill, H.R. 106- 4461, lest it be subject to a point of order. This amendment shall not go beyond clarification and recognition of the original and enduring meaning of the law that has existed for years now--specifically that no funds be spent on unauthorized activities for the fatally flawed and unratified Kyoto Protocol. Mr. Chairman, the whole nation deserves to hear the plea of this Administration for clarification of the Kyoto Protocol funding limitation. The plea came from the coordinator of all environmental policy for this Administration, George Frampton, in his position as Acting Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality. On March 1, 2000, on behalf of the Administration he stated before the VA/HUD appropriations subcommittee, and I quote, ``Just to finish our dialogue here [about the Kyoto Protocol funding limitation], my point was that it is the very uncertainty about the scope of the language . . . that gives rise to our wanting to not have the continuation of this uncertainty created next year.'' Mr. Chairman, I agree with Mr. Obey when he stated to the Administration, ``You're nuts!'' upon learning of the fatally flawed Kyoto Protocol that Vice President Gore negotiated. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Congress for the focus on the activities of this Administration, both authorized and unauthorized. This amendment shall be read to be a clarification that is fully consistent with the provision that has been signed by President Clinton in six current appropriations laws. A few key points must be reviewed: First, no agency can proceed with activities that are not specifically authorized and funded. Mr. Chairman, there has been an effort to confuse the long-standing support that I as well as other strong supporters of the provision on the Kyoto Protocol have regarding important energy supply and energy conservation program. For example, there has never been a question about strong support for voluntary programs, development of clean coal technology, and improvements in energy conservation for all sectors of our economy. Notwithstanding arguments that have been made on the floor in recent days, I have never, ever tried to undermine, eliminate, delete, or delay any programs that have been specifically authorized and funded. Second, no new authority is granted. [[Page H5688]] Third, since neither the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change nor the Kyoto Protocol are self executing, specific implementing legislation is required for any regulation, program, or initiative. Fourth, since the Kyoto Protocol has not been ratified and implementing legislation has not been approved by Congress, nothing contained exclusively in that treaty is funded. Mr. Chairman, as you know, the Administration negotiated the Kyoto Climate Change Protocol some time ago but has decided not to submit this treaty to the United States Senate for ratification. All indications from this Administration lead to the conclusion that they have no intention of ever submitting the Kyoto Protocol to the Senate. Pursuant to Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, the President only has the power to make treaties ``by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.'' It is therefore unconstitutional for the President to make a treaty in contravention of the Advice of the Senate. The unanimous (95-0) advice of the Senate was given in Senate Resolution 105-98, referred to as the Byrd-Hagel Resolution. Likewise it is therefore unconstitutional for the President to make a treaty with no intention of ever seeking the consent of the Senate. The Protocol places severe restrictions on the United States while exempting most countries, including China, India, Mexico, and Brazil, from taking measures to reduce carbon dioxide equivalent emissions. The Administration undertook this course of action despite unanimous support in the United States Senate for the Senate's advice in the form of the Byrd-Hagel resolution calling for commitments by all nations and on the condition that the Protocol not adversely impact the economy of the United States. We are also concerned that actions taken by Federal agencies constitute the implementation of this treaty before its submission to Congress as required by the Constitution of the United States. Clearly, Congress cannot allow any agency to attempt to interpret current law to avoid constitutional due process. Clearly, we would not need this debate if the Administration would send the treaty to the Senate. The treaty would be disposed of and we could return to a more productive process for addressing our energy future. During numerous hearings on this issue, the administration has not been willing to engage in this debate. For example, it took months to extract the documents the administration used for its flawed economics. The message is clear--there is no interest in sharing with the American public the real price tag of this policy. A balanced public debate will be required because there is much to be learned about the issue before we commit this country to unprecedented curbs on energy use while most of the world is exempt. Worse yet, some treaty supporters see this as only a first step to elimination of fossil energy production. Unfortunately, the Administration has chosen to keep this issue out of the current debate. I look forward to working to assure that the administration and EPA understand the boundaries of the current law. It will be up to Congress to assure that backdoor implementation of the Kyoto Protocol does not occur. In that regard I would like to include in the Record a letter with legislative history of the Clean Air Act reported by Congressman John Dingell who was the Chairman of the House Conference on the Clearn Air Act amendments of 1990. No one knows the Clean Air Act like Congressman Dingell. He makes clear, and I quote, ``Congress has not enacted implementing legislation authorizing EPA or any other agency to regulate greenhouse gases.'' In closing, I look forward to the report language to clarify what activities are and are not authorized. Mr. Chairman, I include the following letter for the Record: October 5, 1999. Hon. David M. McIntosh, Chairman, Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs, Committee on Government Reform, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that you have asked, based on discussions between our staffs, about the disposition by the House-Senate conferees of the amendments in 1990 to the Clean Air Act (CAA) regarding greenhouse gases such as methane and carbon dioxide. In making this inquiry, you call my attention to an April 10, 1998 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) memorandum entitled `EPA's Authority to Regulate Pollutants Emitted by Electric Power Generation Sources' and an October 12, 1998 memorandum entitled `The Authority of EPA to Regulate Carbon Dioxide Under the Clean Air Act' prepared for the National Mining Association. The latter memorandum discusses the legislative history of the 1990 amendments. First, the House-passed bill (H.R. 3030) never included any provision regarding the regulation of any greenhouse gas, such as methane or carbon dioxide, nor did the bill address global climate change. The House, however, did include provisions aimed at implementing the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Second, as to the Senate version (S. 1630) of the proposed amendments, the October 12, 1998 memorandum correctly points out that the Senate did address greenhouse gas matters and global warming, along with provisions implementing the Montreal Protocol. Nevertheless, only Montreal Protocol related provisions were agreed to by the House-Senate conferees (see Conf. Rept. 101-952, Oct. 26, 1990). However, I should point out that Public Law 101-549 of November 15, 1990, which contains the 1990 amendments to the CAA, includes some provisions, such as sections 813, 817 and 819-821, that were enacted as free-standing provisions separate from the CAA. Although the Public Law often refers to the `Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,' the Public Law does not specify that reference as the `short title' of all of the provisions included the Public Law. One of these free-standing provisions, section 821, entitled `Information Gathering on Greenhouse Gases contributing to Global Climate Change' appears in the United States code as a `note' (at 42 U.S.C. 7651k). It requires regulations by the EPA to `monitor carbon dioxide emissions' from `all affected sources subject to title V' of the CAA and specifies that the emissions are to be reported to the EPA. That section does not designate carbon dioxide as a `pollutant' for any purpose. Finally, Title IX of the Conference Report, entitled `Clean Air Research,' was primarily negotiated at the time by the House and Senate Science Committees, which had no regulatory jurisdiction under House-Senate Rules. This title amended section 103 of the CAA by adding new subsections (c) through (k). New subsection (g), entitled `Pollution Prevention and Control,' calls for `non-regulatory strategies and technologies for air pollution prevention.' While it refers, as noted in the EPA memorandum, to carbon dioxide as a `pollutant,' House and Senate conferees never agreed to designate carbon dioxide as a pollutant for regulatory or other purposes. Based on my review of this history and my recollection of the discussions, I would have difficulty concluding that the House-Senate conferees, who rejected the Senate regulatory provisions (with the exception of the above-referenced section 821), contemplated regulating greenhouse gas emissions or addressing global warming under the Clean Air Act. Shortly after enactment of Public Law 101-549, the United Nations General Assembly established in December 1990 the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee that ultimately led to the Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was ratified by the United States after advice and consent by the Senate. That Convention is, of course, not self-executing, and the Congress has not enacted implementing legislation authorizing EPA or any other agency to regulate greenhouse gases. I hope that this is responsive. With best wishes, Sincerely, John D. Dingell, Ranking Member. Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Knollenberg amendment. His characterization of the language is absolutely correct. It is the same as energy and water, it is the same as full committee has reported for foreign operations and essentially the same intent as Veterans Administration, HUD and Urban Development as well. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate his work in a bipartisan fashion and, again, I agree with the premise of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), Kyoto is not the law of the land, but we want to ensure that where we have authorized programs and where there is duplicate language that the law can also be followed. I do appreciate the initiative of the gentleman and would ask my colleagues to support his amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg). The amendment was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: Sec. 735. After taking any action involving the seizure, quarantine, treatment, destruction, or disposal of wheat infested with karnal bunt, the Secretary of Agriculture shall compensate the producers and handlers for economic losses incurred as the result of the action not later than 45 days after receipt of a claim that includes all appropriate paperwork. Sec. 736. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Town of Lloyd, New York and the Town of Harris, New York shall be eligible for loans and grants provided through the Rural Community Advancement Program. {time} 1630 Amendment No. 56 Offered by Mr. Boyd Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. [[Page H5689]] The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 56 offered by Mr. Boyd: Page 72, lines 18 and 19, strike ``Town of Harris'' and insert ``Town of Thompson''. Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure that we have the amendment correct. It should be the amendment that changes the ``Town of Harris'' to the ``Town of Thompson.'' The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida is correct. Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, it is a technical amendment. I ask support for the amendment. Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I accept the gentleman's amendment and recommend that the House do so as well. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd). The amendment was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read: The Clerk read as follows: Sec. 737. Hereafter, notwithstanding section 502(h)(7) of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1472(h)(7)), the fee collected by the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to a guaranteed loan under such section 502(h) at the time of the issuance of such guarantee may be in an amount equal to not more than 2 percent of the principal obligation of the loan. Sec. 738. The Secretary of Agriculture may use funds available under this and subsequent appropriation Acts to employ individuals to perform services outside the United States as determined by the agencies to be necessary or appropriate for carrying out programs and activities abroad; and such employment actions, hereafter referred to as Personal Service Agreements (PSA), are authorized to be negotiated, the terms of the PSA to be prescribed and work to be performed, where necessary, without regard to such statutory provisions as related to the negotiation, making and performance of contracts and performance of work in the United States. Individuals employed under a PSA to perform such services outside the United States shall not by virtue of such employment be considered employees of the United States Government for purposes of any law administered by the Office of Personnel Management. Such individuals may be considered employees within the meaning of the Federal Employee Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. 8101 et seq. Further, that Government service credit shall be accrued for the time employed under a PSA should the individual later be hired into a permanent U.S. Government position within FAS or another U.S. Government agency if their authorities so permit. Sec. 739. (a) In General.--Section 141 of the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7251) is amended-- (1) in subsection (b)(4), by striking ``and 2000''; and inserting ``through 2001''; and (2) in subsection (h), by striking ``2000'' each place it appears and inserting ``2001''. (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 142(e) of the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7252(e)) is amended by striking ``2001'' and inserting ``2002''. Sec. 740. In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated or made available by this Act, $4,000,000 is appropriated for the purpose of providing Bill Emerson and Mickey Leland Hunger Fellowships through the Congressional Hunger Center. Sec. 741. Notwithstanding section 718, title VII of Public Law 105-277, as amended, funds made available hereafter in annual appropriations acts may be used to provide market access program assistance pursuant to section 203 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978, as amended (7 U.S.C. 5623), to any agricultural commodity as defined in section 102 of the Agriculture Trade Act of 1978, as amended (7 U.S.C. 5602), except for products specifically excluded by section 1302, title I of Public Law 103-66, as amended, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. Point of Order Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order on this section restoring the eligibility of mink for MAP funds. The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members who wish to be heard on the point of order that this section constitutes legislation? The Chair finds, that this provision explicitly supersedes existing law in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained, and the provision is stricken from the bill. The Clerk will read. The Clerk