Amendment Text: H.Amdt.233 — 109th Congress (2005-2006)

There is one version of the amendment.

Shown Here:
Amendment as Offered (06/08/2005)

This Amendment appears on page H4243 in the following article from the Congressional Record.



[Pages H4208-H4251]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 303 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2744.
  The Chair designates the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) as 
chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Issa) to assume the chair temporarily.

                              {time}  1224


                     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 consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2744) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, 
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, with Mr. Issa 
(Acting Chairman) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as 
having been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla).
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring before the House today the fiscal 
year 2006 appropriations bill for agriculture, rural development, the 
FDA and related agencies. As many people know, this bill does not just 
fund agriculture issues that are so important for the Nation and the 
world but also funds the Food and Drug Administration, the Women, 
Infants and Children program, and the food stamp program. There are a 
wide variety of issues that are very significant to this Nation and the 
world.
  This is a bipartisan bill, Mr. Chairman. I am very proud this year to 
have worked for the first time with the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Ms. DeLauro), who was a great partner in putting this bill together, 
as are all the members of the subcommittee. This is a great 
subcommittee that comes to the table every day with sometimes 
differences of opinion, but at the end of the day want to get a bill 
done. As chairman of this subcommittee, it has been a very fulfilling 
experience to have gone through this process with this great group.
  We have difficult challenges every year when we put this subcommittee 
mark together and when we put the bill together. We had over 2,100 
individual requests from Members; so with the good staff that we have 
that I will get into a little more later, we have had to go through 
with a fine-tooth comb every request to make sure that it does not 
overlap with another request and then to prioritize all of these very 
important issues that come from Members all over the country.
  I would also like to thank the staff for working on this. I want to 
take a moment to mention some very important names who have worked on 
this bill, sometimes day and night and on weekends as well: Martha 
Foley of the minority staff; and Maureen Holohan, Leslie Barrack, and 
Jamie Swafford of the majority staff. In addition, I want to thank our 
detailee Tom O'Brien and Walt Smith from my personal staff; and, of 
course, my distinguished clerk, Martin Delgado, who does a fabulous job 
on this bill. I also want to take a brief moment to recognize Joanne 
Perdue who worked on the committee for several years and retired from 
the committee just this past month.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also like to point out just in very broad terms 
that this bill takes care of a lot of issues that are critical not just 
to agriculture producers but to consumers in terms of food safety, 
research projects that are going on in every State in this Nation. A 
lot of people go to the grocery store, Mr. Chairman, and they see that 
big truck pulling up in the back of the store and unloading goods that 
are put on shelves and in the freezers at the local grocery store and 
their products that are sold at a high quality for a good price. Quite 
frankly, most Americans do not know all of the policy and all of the 
research and all of the hard work that goes into putting that product 
on the shelf so that Americans can go into the store, use those coupons 
and enjoy themselves and the quality of life that it brings to 
Americans all across the country. Again, there is a lot of detail that 
goes into putting this bill together.
  I am also very proud to work hand in hand with the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), our authorizing chairman, who has been a 
partner in this process not just this year but every year. So all of 
these policies and all of these programs that I am talking about here 
have been a team effort.
  Mr. Chairman, I include at this point in the Record the following 
tabular material related to the bill:

[[Page H4209]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN05.001



[[Page H4210]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN05.002



[[Page H4211]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN05.003



[[Page H4212]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN05.004



[[Page H4213]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN05.005



[[Page H4214]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN05.006



[[Page H4215]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN05.007



[[Page H4216]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN05.008



[[Page H4217]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN05.009



[[Page H4218]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman for his statement. I am pleased to join him for 
the first time in my capacity as ranking member of the agriculture 
appropriations subcommittee. It has been a pleasure working with the 
gentleman from Texas and his staff to put together the 2006 agriculture 
appropriations bill and with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) 
and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) as we worked in full 
committee to get here today.
  I, too, would like to say thank you to the staff of the subcommittee: 
to Martha Foley; to my own personal staff, to Karen Wilcox, Ashley 
Turton and Becky Salay; the majority office, Martin Delgado, Maureen 
Holohan, Leslie Barrack, Tom O'Brien, Jami Burgess. I really again say 
thank you for your expertise and for your patience. Let me also 
compliment the chairman on doing the very best with limited resources 
in this bill. Unfortunately, we know that the budget situation means 
that the funding allocation for this subcommittee was simply not 
sufficient to meet all the needs of rural America and our Nation's 
farmers.
  When I chose to sit on this subcommittee 9 years ago, I did so 
because I believed that the issues overseen by this subcommittee are 
core responsibilities of the Federal Government. This is the only 
subcommittee where farm policy, rural development and conservation, 
nutrition programs, food safety, drug regulations, and public health 
all come together. Although some might be surprised to learn, I have 
nearly 400 farms in my district ranging from dairy farms to 
horticulture and aquaculture, to orchards and vegetable cultivation. In 
fact, the first experiment station in the United States still does 
cutting-edge research in New Haven.
  Another area that I have spent time on is determining how we can best 
secure our food supply, something in which every American has a stake. 
My duties as cochair and founder of the bipartisan Food Safety Caucus 
have informed my understanding of the importance of the 
responsibilities of USDA and FDA alike, giving me the opportunity to 
visit slaughter plants and feed lots as well as fruit and vegetable 
farms across the country.

                              {time}  1230

  I see food safety as a public health issue. I look forward to finding 
ways that can mutually benefit the health of our people, our farms, and 
our food supply. In addition, urban areas like New Haven rely on 
feeding programs for women, infants and children, for schools, for 
seniors, and for some of the disabled living on the edge of poverty.
  Yesterday was National Hunger Awareness Day, and our subcommittee is 
certainly aware that the President's budget predicted an increase in 
the use of food stamps in 2006. Unfortunately, this bill does not 
provide enough funding to maintain current participation in the 
Commodity Supplemental Food Program. At least 45,000 participants, the 
overwhelming majority of older Americans, will have to be dropped from 
this program unless there are more funds provided.
  Ensuring that these programs are funded is, in my opinion, among the 
very serious moral obligations of government. It is my belief that the 
bill before us today is more than a list of programs and funding 
levels. It is statement of values, of principles and priorities, a 
moral document so that when we discuss the bill and how it allocates 
$16.8 billion for USDA, I believe we must think of it in those terms.
  We should remember that the farm programs and the international trade 
promotion and advocacy that help our farmers across the country and 
sell our products have profound implications on our Nation's overall 
economy and our quality of life, that research programs at USDA are 
critical to our efforts to protect our agricultural plant and animal 
products, our environment, and our public health.
  Unfortunately, in some of these area this bill falls short. I believe 
that the President's budget failed to meet the needs of rural America, 
decimating rural development programs. This bill makes headway in 
reversing cuts made by the President. However, I am concerned that 
funding for water and waste grants, for example, remains below the 
level of last year's House bill and well below the 2004 bill.
  Rural America faces serious economic development challenges: 
affordable housing, clean drinking water, sewerage systems, access to 
remote educational and medical resources. I am afraid that this funding 
shortfall will lead to long-term deficiencies in rural infrastructure.
  Of course, this bill covers the funding of one of the most important 
agencies in our entire government, the Food and Drug Administration 
within the Department of Health and Human Services. FDA oversees some 
of the most critical products that our citizens rely on every single 
day. The vast majority are processed and fresh foods, except for meat, 
poultry, and egg products; our prescription and over-the-counter drugs; 
medical devices; our blood supply.
  This agency had many problems over the last year, from the recalls of 
Bextra and Vioxx to hearings in which its drug safety scientists have 
been at odds with the senior management of FDA. It is troubling, very 
troubling, that the FDA's acting commissioner was not permitted to come 
before our subcommittee to testify this year, and that failure made it 
difficult for the committee to make informed decisions.
  I thank the chairman for accepting the amendment that I offered in 
subcommittee to withhold 5 percent of the funds from the Food and Drug 
Administration's central offices until the head of the agency testifies 
regarding their budget request. This will not affect food or drug 
safety. It will only affect FDA's administrative offices. But I am sure 
that it will serve to get the administration's and the leadership of 
FDA's attention.
  On that same topic, I thank the chairman for working with me to 
include funding to double the annual funding for review and direct-to-
consumer ads by FDA, as well as another $5 million for drug safety at 
the FDA.
  In 2001, the drug industry spent $2.7 billion on direct-to-consumer 
advertising, but the FDA office charged with ensuring that those ads 
are accurate was funded at less than $1 million, $884,000 to be 
precise. Doubling that amount is a small start toward remedying the 
inequitable advantage, and the $5 million will be devoted to the most 
critical aspects of drug safety.
  I find it unfortunate the bill includes a 1-year limitation on 
implementation of the country of origin labeling for meat and meat 
products. Country of origin labeling would give people the information 
they need to make an informed choice to protect the safety of their 
families. Thirty-five other countries that we trade with, including 
Canada, Mexico, members of the European Union, already have a country 
of origin labeling system in place. I believe it is a mistake to not 
move forward on implementing country of origin labeling.
  On International Food Aid, the subcommittee bill restores $222 
million of funds under Public Law 480 that the administration sought to 
move to USAID, and I thank the chairman for preventing that move. 
However, we remain well below the funding level the past few years for 
that critical aid program. This law not only benefits those in dire 
need around the world, many of whom are starving to death, it benefits 
our farmers and our maritime shippers by utilizing our farm products 
and sources of transportation, and I hope that we can bring that 
funding level up before this bill becomes law.
  I am pleased that the President's proposals to change formula funding 
for agriculture research institutions and to alter the funding stream 
for the Food and Safety Inspection Service through user fees were not 
included in the bill.
  I also appreciate the chairman's working with the Democratic members 
of the subcommittee to begin to fund last year's Specialty Crop 
Competitiveness Act to enhance specialty crops such as fruits, 
vegetables, tree nuts, dried fruits, and nursery crops in this bill and 
for the Farmers Market Promotion Program, a function that can expand 
the farmer-consumer relationship in many areas of our country.
  The programs funded through this bill directly impact the everyday 
lives of every American, from public health and FDA to rural 
development, infrastructure maintenance, environmental

[[Page H4219]]

conservation and preservation, to nutrition assistance at home and 
abroad. Failure to adequately invest in these programs will have 
serious long-term consequences for our Nation.
  Again, I have enjoyed working with the chairman and his staff, and I 
believe that we can take pride in the progress we have made in 
significantly improving the bill over the proposals that we did receive 
from the President.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Farr).
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), chairman of the 
subcommittee.
  I want to thank the chairman and the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Ms. DeLauro), ranking member, for their work on this fiscal year 2006 
agriculture appropriations bill. I appreciate what they have done with 
what they have had to work with. I also want to thank the professional 
staff: Martin, Maureen, Leslie, Tom, and Martha. They have done a 
tremendous job in putting together a balanced bill.
  Mr. Chairman, under our tight budget constraints, we are happy to see 
that the USDA CSREES Integrated programs, such as the Section 406 
Organic Transition Program, that were moved into the National Research 
Initiative are directed to be funded at last year's levels.
  As a point of clarification, I would like to verify my understanding 
that the committee's intent is that the Organic Transition Program, 
although proposed to be funded through the National Research 
Initiative, will continue to be managed, as it was in fiscal year 2004 
and fiscal year 2005, as part of the Integrated Organic Program. 
Specifically, that the request for proposals will continue to be issued 
jointly with that of the Organic Research Initiative under the 
management of USDA CSREES staff, including the Organic National Program 
leader.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FARR. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BONILLA. Yes, Mr. Chairman. It is my understanding that there are 
benefits to the Organic Transition Program being managed as part of the 
Integrated Organic Program, and my intention is that it should continue 
to be managed as it was in fiscal years 2004 and 2005.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for 
that clarification, and I appreciate the work he has done.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of our committee.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, as I indicated earlier, I intend to vote for 
this bill because I think the gentleman from Texas has done a 
reasonable job, given the limitations placed on him by the budget 
resolution.
  Having said that, I do not want anyone to think that I am 
enthusiastic about the result. I am not. I think that after we pass 
this bill today the Food and Drug Administration will still be left 
with inadequate authority to protect the public health from dangerous 
drugs. The FDA will still have a terrible time trying to provide new 
labels for drugs which had been initially approved but which later had 
been found to be, in some cases, a threat to public health. This 
Congress has an obligation to fix that. It is being prevented from 
fixing that by the rule that passed earlier today.
  Secondly, I want to say that I think the bill is inadequate in a 
number of areas. I think that with respect to having a full-fledged 
animal identification program to help protect the public health against 
problems like Mad Cow disease, I think that the funding for that is 
inadequate.
  I certainly think that funding for rural sewer and water is grossly 
inadequate. There is probably more demand in my district for rural 
sewer and water grants than any other program in the Federal budget. 
When one lives in a community in which more than 50 percent of the 
households are headed either by someone over 65 or by a woman who has 
no long work history outside of the home, that means that that 
community has very little tax base and very little economic ability to 
meet environmental standards for water and sewer, and the Congress is 
doing precious little to help those communities.
  I think we are also very negligent with respect to rural housing, and 
I think that this bill is totally inadequate with respect to 
International Food Aid.
  There are a number of other concerns I have about it. But those are 
the main ones that I would focus on at this moment.
  I will vote for the bill because I think the major fault for the 
inadequacies of the bill lies with the Committee on the Budget, not 
with the gentleman who produced the bill. But I think Members need to 
understand this bill is not adequate to meet the economic development 
needs of rural America. It is not adequate to meet the environmental 
needs of rural America. It is not adequate to meet the public health 
requirements of the American people. I wish it were. Maybe some day it 
will.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Let me just say that I want to make it clear that what we tried to do 
with regard to the Food and Drug Administration was to call attention 
to the series of crises that, in fact, have been rampant over the last 
several months, whether it is Vioxx or whether it is Bextra or whether 
it is the post-marketing studies that were to occur that never did 
occur or the slighting, I believe, of our committee in not coming 
forward and having the director come before our committee.
  What we tried to do is to create a balance, and that is to provide 
additional funding for the Office of Drug Safety to look at direct-to-
consumer advertising in order to try to protect the public and to 
provide additional funding to create some more infrastructure.
  I, too, believe that we should have made in order the amendments 
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey). Really what 
should be happening is FDA should be coming to the Congress for 
authority in order to be able to change the labeling that, in fact, 
ultimately protects the public interest and that we ought to have the 
opportunity and they ought to come and demand from us authority in 
order to do post-marketing surveys about the risks of some of the 
products that are on the market. They should be coming to us.
  Instead, we want to provide that authority but are not allowed to be 
able to do that. I think that it was a mistake for us not to do that, 
but I think we need to continue this effort about trying to provide the 
agency which has the regulatory power over the pharmaceutical industry 
to develop some spine in order to be able to protect the public 
interest.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the ranking member of 
the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies of the Committee on 
Appropriations, for yielding me this time in support of H.R. 2744; and 
I want to commend and thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) 
and his fine staff for their work on this important bill. We know it is 
not easy under the budget constraints, and we appreciate all the work 
that has been done.
  I especially want to thank and compliment our new ranking member, the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), and her staff for her 
efforts to be sure our Nation's diverse needs are met, including in 
agriculture, in food safety, in pharmaceutical safety, and all of the 
responsibilities this subcommittee has. It has been a privilege for me 
to have served as ranking member for several years on this 
subcommittee, and I have full confidence that the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) will continue to distinguish herself doing an 
outstanding job in this new role as demonstrated by this very 
impressive start.
  I want to take a brief moment today to raise two issues which are 
part of this appropriations bill and thank the

[[Page H4220]]

committee for its support. Two aspects of this legislation will help 
rural America produce for the future, produce for the marketplace and 
develop expanding markets and be value-added for the benefit of both 
producers and consumers as well as for our Nation.
  I have been a very strong supporter of bioenergy funding every year 
since we first added the first-ever energy title to the farm bill in 
the year 2001. It took us to this new century and millenium to envision 
a new energy future based on American agriculture. It is amazing it has 
been such an uphill struggle to get the Department of Agriculture to 
help the farmers of our country pull this new industry forward. Sadly, 
it is the Department of Agriculture that has been the most lax in this 
partnership.
  Every citizen knows America cannot continue importing our fuels. We 
must restore energy independence here at home. No group is better 
situated to do it immediately than our farmers and ranchers. More 
ethanol and biodiesel are being produced each year. America is only 
beginning to realize the full potential of American agriculture to help 
move America toward energy independence sooner rather than later.
  Just yesterday, producers from around our country displayed a broad 
array of bio-based products here up on Capitol Hill, ranging from 
everything from trash cans to lubricants to carpeting to new materials 
to ethanol to soy diesel, all from American agriculture, as we unlock 
the mystery of organic chemistry and renewable energy for our future.
  The President of the United States has gone to a number of events 
around the country claiming he supports biofuels. He was at another one 
in Virginia last week. But one of the key facts that the press fails to 
report is that the President's budget keeps proposing cuts in the 
programs he claims to support. Year after year, we have seen cuts of 
$50 million or more proposed in the bioenergy program at the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, which is a very small program. Year after 
year, we have to work here in this House and in this Congress to 
restore it.
  I am very pleased that this bill includes $23 million for section 
9006 renewable energy grants and loans. Given the growing support for 
this program, I am happy that we were able to obtain the money in the 
base bill without the need to offer amendments, as we have had to do 
over the past 2 years.
  One of the real success stories in American agriculture in recent 
years, beyond this effort to try to convert to renewable fuels, has 
been the rapid rise of farmers markets and roadside stands across our 
country to help our small family and medium-sized farmers direct 
market. As cartels take over our food system, this is a way forward for 
independent farmers across our country.
  These markets are not just in rural areas. They are in urban areas 
where there are no big grocery stores. They are in urban areas where 
ethnic markets offer great opportunities. They are in urban areas 
offering economic development activity that links knowledgeable 
consumers with appreciative vendors. They are in suburban areas. In 
fact, they are right here behind the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
where we had to fight to get the Department to allow a farmers market 
to operate so the millions of tourists who come here every year could 
buy products grown in Virginia and Maryland and help our local 
producers realize some of that income directly.
  We were able to secure, with the help of the gentleman from Texas 
(Chairman Bonilla) and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), as part of this bill to begin funding for 
the Farmers Market Promotion Program authorized in the farm bill 
several years ago. Competitive applications from across the country 
will be solicited to help expand the availability of fruits and 
vegetables to consumers who want these products but cannot get them as 
readily as you might believe. It will help link our farmers to the real 
consumer market that they deserve to connect to.
  One regret I do have is we were not able to increase funding for the 
Seniors Farmers Market Nutrition program, which has shown that linking 
senior citizens with area farmers is an absolute win-win for both 
nutrition and for American agriculture. The $15 million provided by the 
farm bill is only about half of what the Nation is already saying that 
it needs. But there is no doubt that this program could expand greatly 
in the years to come, and we are going to make every effort to do that.
  I look forward to working to help these programs expand to meet the 
true need among our Nation's seniors as well as others as we move to 
conference and urge support for the fiscal 2006 agriculture 
appropriations bill.
  Again, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) for his 
great composure during committee meetings and his great leadership, and 
also the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and congratulate 
her for the great job she has done on this bill.
  Mr. BONILLA. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Madam Chairman, I thank my colleague from Connecticut 
for her great work.
  Madam Chairman, this year, just like last year and the year before, 
an amendment banning the use of funds to stop reimportation of 
prescription drugs has been added to this legislation. It does feel 
like Ground Hog Day around here. We all know the next part of the 
story. So if you are going to stay up late at night watching C-SPAN, 
just put it on TiVo. You do not have to stay up.
  Once again, after we pass it here, and we are going to stand and give 
our speeches, the conferees from both parties, both Chambers, are going 
to go to the conference, and in the dark of night this provision is 
going to be stripped from the bill that would help our senior citizens 
and our taxpayers get affordable drugs at affordable prices. The 
pharmaceutical companies will come in and do their bidding, and this 
Congress will turn around and heed their interests.
  After the American people have spoken clearly, this Congress last 
year when we voted for this overwhelmingly, just as recently as 2 weeks 
ago 221 bipartisan Members of Congress sent a letter to the Speaker 
asking for an up-or-down vote on this legislation. Here we have an 
attempt to make sure that the Congress and the voice of the American 
people is clear on the issue of funding for reimportation; and in the 
dark of night, mark my words, they will strip this out, as they did 
last year, as they did the year before, and Ground Hog Day will come to 
the United States Congress.
  Instead of using the money and the limited resources we have to help 
develop a system to allow for drug reimportation, the FDA has insisted 
on using their time and the precious resources of the American people 
to crack down on elderly Americans who purchase affordable prescription 
drugs from Canada, England, Ireland, and the rest of Europe because 
they cannot afford those medications here.
  The FDA has even seized the drugs purchased through the State-
sponsored programs like the Illinois I-Save Rx program. As Senator 
Frist would say, all we are asking is for an up-or-down vote, and that 
is what we would like on reimportation.
  Let us listen to the American people, to the will of the bipartisan 
Members of Congress and allow a vote on this comprehensive prescription 
drug importation legislation this year.
  I would like to thank my colleague from Connecticut for her 
leadership on this. For the Members who want it to be clear, I would 
just hope the American people have an opportunity to watch what happens 
in the dark of night so we do not repeat Ground Hog Day around here.
  Mr. BONILLA. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. LATHAM. Madam Chairman, first of all I want to thank the 
gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) for doing such a great job on 
this bill and for his hard work leading the subcommittee through a very 
difficult, tight allocation and really coming out with an excellent 
bill, and also the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), such a 
great ranking Member and true professional. I appreciate that very 
much. I also want to express

[[Page H4221]]

my appreciation to the extremely professional staff that we have on the 
subcommittee. It really makes our job so much easier.
  Like I mentioned, this was a difficult bill with a tight allocation, 
and I think we have a very good product in the end here because of 
that.
  I especially want to point out something I think is very important to 
all livestock producers, anyone concerned about food safety, which is 
the final $58.8 million going to National Animal Disease Center at 
Ames, Iowa. This is the last of the $462 million that we have 
appropriated since the year 2000 for this extraordinarily important 
facility. I hope this year that the Senate will concur and get their 
number so we do not have to revisit this issue again next year with the 
appropriation bill.
  I am very pleased that the bill includes funding for renewable 
energy. Obviously, this is very important for Iowa and our country as 
far as soy diesel, ethanol, biomass, all of those things that are 
critically important long term as far as gaining energy independence 
for the United States, but also doing it in a renewable way that is 
environmentally friendly. This is extraordinarily important; and 
because of the work we have done here, we are able to finally 
experience true value-added agriculture for our farmers at home, so 
they are able to reap the profits from renewable energy.
  I am very pleased that the chairman has included funding to fight the 
potential problem and the very real potential problem of soybean rust 
that has gotten into our country, which could be absolutely devastating 
to a tremendous crop throughout this country, Iowa and the Midwest in 
particular.
  I am very pleased also that the bill includes funding for continued 
work as far as the Animal ID System that we are trying to get in place 
so that we can in fact find when we have an outbreak of, say, mad cow 
disease, something like that, that we are able to identify where that 
animal came from and that we can ensure the food safety.
  One issue that was of some controversy through the hearings was 
continued funding under the Hatch Act for agricultural research. I 
believe that by continuing the funding of the Hatch Act and getting the 
dollars to the universities where they absolutely are needed, the Hatch 
Act funding will allow continued vital research at our land grant 
universities and allow them to continue the great job that they do for 
agriculture, for our farmers today to ensure that the breakthroughs of 
the future will be in the hands of the farmers and for their benefit.
  Also we have to make sure, and this bill does it, that we have a 
continuing, strong Risk Management Crop Insurance program. We all have 
concerns about how it has been administered, and we wanted to make sure 
that the agency reports to us on a quarterly basis so that we can in 
fact make sure that that vital program stays in place.
  Again, in closing, I just want to say thank you once again to the 
chairman and the ranking member and all the committee staff. This is a 
tough year, and it is a great bill. I encourage all of my colleagues 
here in the House to support this bill.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Hinchey), a member of the subcommittee.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Chairman, first of all, let me express my 
appreciation to the leader on our side on this subcommittee, the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). This is her first year as 
the minority rank on this subcommittee, and she is doing an 
outstandingly good job, and we all very much appreciate the work that 
she is doing.
  I also want to express my appreciation to my chairman. He also is 
doing a very good job, particularly under a very difficult set of 
circumstances; and those difficult set of circumstances are, 
particularly, the allocation that this subcommittee has been afforded. 
But that, of course, is universally true. All of these subcommittees 
have been afforded very small, ineffective allocations, ineffective to 
do all the things that need to be done. But, nevertheless, in spite of 
that, I think the chairman has done a good job.
  There is one aspect of this bill, however, to which I would like to 
draw attention, because it is an aspect of the bill that is entirely 
deficient and not only deficient but, because of these deficiencies, 
the result is a potential for serious harm to a large number of 
American citizens. That is the way in which the Food and Drug 
Administration is treated in this legislation, and the fact that the 
Congress has not provided to the FDA the kinds of authority that it 
needs in order to protect the general public against the marketing of 
prescription drugs in ways that are causing serious harm to large 
numbers of the American people.
  Now, recently we have had two experiences, that is, the Nation has 
had two experiences, with drugs that have been very difficult and 
dangerous. The first is antidepressants and the way that they have been 
marketed. They have been marketed largely to people who were targeted 
for marketing off-label. A lot of the people who they were marketed to 
and who used them were young folks, young people, teenagers. The effect 
of these antidepressants on young folks, youngsters, teenagers, people 
in their early 20s particularly, has been to engender in them a deep 
sense of depression which, in many cases, has led to suicide; and it 
has taken us a long time to get attention focused on that problem.
  Another example is the so-called Cox-2 inhibitors, or prescriptions 
such as Vioxx. Vioxx has presented a major, major problem to consumers 
across the country. It is likely that several hundred thousand people, 
as a result of the use of Vioxx, have fallen into conditions where 
their health has been seriously injured; and it may be, and probably 
is, that more than 100,000 people suffered death as a result of the use 
of this prescription drug Vioxx.
  Now, that comes about as a result of the failure of this Congress to 
give the FDA the kind of authority it needs to deal with the drug 
companies; and I later in the debate on this legislation will offer two 
amendments to deal with this problem.
  But, right now, I want to draw the attention of the Members of this 
House to this issue. This is a serious issue which affects the health 
and safety of the American people in material and very dramatic ways. 
It is an issue that is causing the unnecessary death of large numbers 
of Americans, and it is an issue that we have not dealt with and should 
deal with, and if we do address it properly, it will alleviate this 
condition and stop placing so many of American citizens in the kind of 
dangerous, desperate circumstances that they have fallen into which 
have caused serious injury to their health and death in large numbers 
of people.
  So what we need to do is to give the Food and Drug Administration the 
authority to deal with the pharmaceutical companies in the way that any 
regulatory agency would deal with the entity that it is regulating.
  For example, in the case of Vioxx, once that drug got on the market 
and it became clear that people were being injured as a result of 
exposure to it, and the off-label marketing of that drug particularly, 
once that became clear, the Food and Drug Administration was not in a 
position to tell the drug company that they had to engage in an 
educational program which would ensure that people to whom the drug 
would be dangerous would not be using it. They could not order the 
pharmaceutical company to do anything with regard to the labeling on 
that drug. They had to negotiate with the company.
  So these are some of the major issues that we are facing, one of the 
major deficiencies in this legislation that needs to be addressed, and 
I will be offering two amendments later on in the debate, and I hope 
that the Members of this Congress will embrace those amendments.
  Mr. BONILLA. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chairman, I would like to inquire about how much 
time is remaining on both sides.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mrs. Capito). The gentlewoman from Connecticut 
has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from Texas has 22\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski).

[[Page H4222]]

  Mr. KANJORSKI. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me 
this time, and I want to explain a problem that we discovered as the 
bill has been moving through.
  Since 1997, by Executive order, a program was created known as the 
American Heritage Rivers Initiative. In that program, there are 14 
rivers, one of which is the Hudson River in New York State and the 
Susquehanna in Pennsylvania. As a combined effort over the last 5 or 6 
years, funding for the river navigator has come through the program of 
the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Either inadvertently or 
otherwise, even though we have had bipartisan support for the support 
of these two navigator positions for the Hudson River and the 
Susquehanna, the Susquehanna was inadvertently not included in report 
language on page 51 of the report, where only the Hudson River is 
indicated.
  What I would request from the chairman is assurances that during 
conference that report language would be amended to include the 
Susquehanna River for funding the navigator.
  Just as a justification for that, I want to point out that the 
Susquehanna River has been designated by American Rivers as one of the 
most polluted and endangered rivers in the country. Toward that end, 
the navigator presently in place has been involved in two areas: 
improving water quality and use, and increased economic development in 
the region.
  To give my colleagues an example, we are now in the throes of more 
than $100 million in projects as a result of the effort of the 
navigator position: remodeling an old hotel in downtown Wilkes-Barre on 
the waterfront that exceeds $24 million in costs; riverfront 
revitalization that is between $25 million and $30 million; a program 
of $10 million of the GIS project to include the entire Susquehanna 
watershed so that we can work on water quality problems in that area of 
the Susquehanna River; and a project, an ongoing project presently of 
over $30 million to service the combined sewage overflows into the 
Susquehanna River. Without the key leadership of the navigator, we will 
lose that $100 or $150 million in projects and return to really zero.
  What I am urging the chairman to indicate is his willingness to amend 
the report language as this bill proceeds through conference to include 
not only the Hudson River but also the Susquehanna River. I may assure 
the chairman that we have worked in a very bipartisan effort with 
members of the New York delegation and Governor Pataki's office that 
both of these river navigator positions should be funded in this bill, 
as the other 12 navigators are funded in other appropriations bills 
across the country. But to leave out the Susquehanna River, either 
inadvertently or by error, would be catastrophic to my congressional 
district.
  Mr. BONILLA. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KANJORSKI. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BONILLA. Madam Chairman, the gentleman has worked very hard on 
this project; and at this time, as chairman, I would like to commit to 
trying to resolve this problem to his satisfaction between now and the 
conference.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's interest; 
and I will rely on the chairman's good faith to accomplish to that end. 
As a result, I think we can all say that we have resolved this problem.
  Mr. BONILLA. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chairman, I would ask the chairman if he has any 
additional speakers.
  Mr. BONILLA. Madam Chairman, we have no additional speakers at this 
time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the remaining 2\1/2\ 
minutes to close.
  Madam Chairman, as we conclude the general debate, I wanted to 
reiterate that it has been a pleasure to work with the gentleman from 
Texas (Chairman Bonilla) on the bill. Given limited resources, I think 
we have tried to do a good job to meet the needs of rural America, our 
Nation's farmers, and other accounts funded in the bill.
  As we begin to move through the amendment process, I look forward to 
trying to address several areas in the bill that I believe could use 
some improvement.
  I mentioned earlier the Commodity Supplemental Food Program. A 
majority of older Americans, nearly 45,000 participants, will have to 
be dropped from this vital program unless more funds are provided.
  Also of concern to me is the 1-year limitation on implementation of 
country of origin labeling for meat and meat products. Consumers in 
this country need the information to make informed decisions for their 
safety and the safety of their families, and I hope that the House will 
reconsider the country of origin labeling provision in this bill.
  Overall, I think that the committee can feel good about the work that 
it has done on this legislation thus far. I am hoping that we can look 
at an amendment process where we can improve the bill even more in just 
a few critical areas.
  I would hope that with regard to the Food and Drug Administration 
that, in fact, we will be able to provide them with the authorities 
that I think the Nation would believe that they desperately need, and 
that is to be able to do post-marketing studies on drug products on the 
market and also to change labels that would need changing in order to 
protect the citizenry of this country.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support 
of H.R. 2744.
  Madam Chairman, the Chairman and the new Ranking Minority Member of 
the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee have done an excellent job 
under very difficult circumstances.
  Madam Chairman, I support this bill because it will ensure that 
important farm bill programs are administered--as well as many of the 
important discretionary programs of USDA.
  Madam Chairman, the Farm Bill was developed in a responsible, 
forward-looking manner. It was devised within the terms of the 
Congressional budget, and while it addressed farm income, it also made 
substantial investments in research, in conservation, and in enhancing 
the nutrition programs that protect the needy.
  But because of this Congress' failure to take a similar, forward-
looking approach to government debt, this bill makes deep cuts in those 
farm bill programs that were so strongly supported in this House. The 
FY 2004 Agriculture Appropriations bill made substantial cuts in Farm 
Bill programs, the FY 2005 bill went even farther, and this bill cuts 
them even more.
  Madam Chairman, the Appropriations Committee can't be blamed for this 
situation. They have worked on a bipartisan basis to provide the best 
bill possible in a bad situation.
  But in order to meet the cap, this bill cuts these mandatory farm 
bill programs: the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems; 
rural broadband and local television initiatives, the Wetlands Reserve 
Program, bioenergy and renewable energy development; the EQIP program, 
the Conservation Security Program, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives 
Program, the Farmland Protection Program, and others as well
  Madam Chairman, the Farm Bill--which was developed in a very 
inclusive and bipartisan manner--has been working very well. In fact, 
during the time it has been in effect, commodity program spending has 
been $15 billion less than originally projected. But our current fiscal 
policies are tearing the Farm Bill apart bit by bit. I hope that soon 
we can end the partisanship that characterizes fiscal policy and work 
together towards a common solution.
  Madam Chairman, once again I commend Appropriations Committee members 
on both sides for their work on this important bill and I urge my 
colleagues to vote for its passage.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Madam Chairman, I rise today to 
express my disappointment at the under-funding of the Commodity 
Supplemental Food Program under the Agriculture Appropriations bill for 
FY 06.
  The Commodity Supplemental Food Program is a federal program designed 
to improve the health of senior citizens, pregnant women and children 
whose income is not enough to pay for nutritious food.
  Through this program, seniors, pregnant and breastfeeding women, and 
children younger than 5 in 34 States in this country have access to a 
monthly basket, which provides them with basic food, such as milk, 
rice, pasta, juice, canned vegetables, meat and fish, and cheese.
  Each basket is designed to satisfy the specific needs for people who 
often have to choose between purchasing food and satisfying other 
necessities. Each basket has the purpose of assisting elder people to 
stay healthy and active, and children to grow healthy and productive.

[[Page H4223]]

  Inadequate funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program would 
result in the removal of more than 75,000 people currently 
participating in the program. Seniors, women and children in poverty 
cannot wait until next year to get adequate funding for the food they 
need.
  For these reasons, I recommended to the Committee that funding for 
the Commodity Supplemental Food Program be increased to $148 million. 
Unfortunately, the House appropriation falls far below the amount 
necessary. I can only hope that my colleagues in the other Chamber will 
approve the adequate funds to avoid this social catastrophe.
  By approving increasing fund for this program we will show seniors, 
women and children in need, that we care and work for them.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Madam Chairman, I rise to speak on the measure before us, 
providing budget authority for programming by the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture and others. It provides for about 20 percent of total USDA 
budget authority. As Chairman of the Budget Committee, I am pleased to 
note that this bill is consistent with the levels established in H. 
Con. Res. 95, the House concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal 
year 2006. Overall spending in the bill is $29 million more than the 
2005 enacted level and $22 million above the President's request.


                       department of agriculture

  In most areas within USDA, appropriators ended up somewhere between 
the President's request and the 2005 enacted level. None of the 
President's initiatives to collect $178 million in new or increased 
user fees was taken up, making up the difference through spending 
reductions in some discretionary programs and through $1.4 billion in 
reductions in some mandatory programs authorized for the first time in 
the 2002 farm bill.
  The bill makes changes in various mandatory programs that reduce net 
budget authority by $1.4 billion. Specifically, it reduces budget 
authority by about 25 percent for a number of mandatory conservation 
programs and eliminates funding for a subset of agricultural research 
and rural development programs. While the use of one-year savers in 
mandatory programs to stay within the Subcommittee's 302(b) allocation 
has become routine, the Agriculture Committee could change some of 
these same mandatory programs themselves in order to comply with the 
reconciliation instructions in the Fiscal Year 2006 budget resolution.


                      food and drug administration

  H.R. 2744 provides $1.8 billion for the salaries and expenses of the 
Food and Drug Administration [FDA], an increase of $55.3 million, or 
3.1 percent, above the 2005 enacted level and a decrease of $17.7 
million below the President's request. Of the appropriated funds, $357 
million is financed from on-going drug, device and animal drug user 
fees. Under provisions of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, the FDA 
will collect $305 million as user fees to offset part of the costs of 
prescription drug approval. This bill provides an increase of $12.4 
million for food safety and counter-terrorism activities to ensure 
consumers are protected against intentional and accidental risks that 
threaten our food supply.
  H.R. 2744 does not contain any emergency-designated BA, which is 
exempt from budget limits. The bill does rescind $32 million in the 
unobligated balances of the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for 
Women, Infants, and Children.


                             iowa concerns

  I am particularly pleased that this legislation contains critical 
funding for ag and food safety programs in my home state of Iowa. 
Specifically, I would like to commend the committee for funding the 
completion of the National Centers for Animal Health in Ames, Iowa, 
where vital research to keep our nation's food supply safe is being 
done everyday. In addition, this bill continues funding for the 
Agriculture-Based Industrial Lubricants (ABIL) program at the 
University of Northern Iowa in my Congressional district. The ABIL 
program continues to promote value-added and environmentally safe 
agriculture products.
  As we continue the appropriations season, I commend Chairman Lewis 
and our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for meeting the 
needs of the American public within the framework established by the 
budget resolution. In conclusion, I express my support for H.R. 2744.
  Mr. DeLAURO. Madam Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Madam Chairman, in the interest of moving forward and 
moving to the amendment process, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule. During consideration of the bill for 
amendment, the Chair may accord priority in recognition to a Member 
offering an amendment that he has printed in the designated place in 
the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2744

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2006, and for other purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                         AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

                        Office of the Secretary

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, $5,127,000: Provided, That not to exceed $11,000 
     of this amount shall be available for official reception and 
     representation expenses, not otherwise provided for, as 
     determined by the Secretary.

                          Executive Operations


                            chief economist

       For necessary expenses of the Chief Economist, including 
     economic analysis, risk assessment, cost-benefit analysis, 
     energy and new uses, and the functions of the World 
     Agricultural Outlook Board, as authorized by the Agricultural 
     Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1622g), $10,539,000.

                       National Appeals Division

       For necessary expenses of the National Appeals Division, 
     $14,524,000.

                 Office of Budget and Program Analysis

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Budget and Program 
     Analysis, $8,298,000.

                        Homeland Security Staff

       For necessary expenses of the Homeland Security Staff, 
     $934,000.

                Office of the Chief Information Officer

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief 
     Information Officer, $16,462,000.

                      Common Computing Environment

       For necessary expenses to acquire a Common Computing 
     Environment for the Natural Resources Conservation Service, 
     the Farm and Foreign Agricultural Service, and Rural 
     Development mission areas for information technology, 
     systems, and services, $124,580,000, to remain available 
     until expended, for the capital asset acquisition of shared 
     information technology systems, including services as 
     authorized by 7 U.S.C. 6915-16 and 40 U.S.C. 1421-28: 
     Provided, That obligation of these funds shall be consistent 
     with the Department of Agriculture Service Center 
     Modernization Plan of the county-based agencies, and shall be 
     with the concurrence of the Department's Chief Information 
     Officer.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Bonilla

  Mr. BONILLA. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Bonilla:
       On page 3, line 12, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(decreased by $40,000,000)'';
       On page 30, line 19, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(decreased by $20,000,000)'';
       On page 33, line 2, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $20,000,000)'';
       On page 44, line 1, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $40,000,000)''; and
       On page 44, line 10, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $40,000,000)''.

  Mr. BONILLA (during the reading). Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BONILLA. Madam Chairman, I would like to briefly explain the 
amendment and the purpose of the amendment.
  First of all, the amendment cuts $40 million from the Common 
Computing Environment account and increases the value-added market 
development grants by $40 million. The amendment also reduces the 
Conservation Operations account by $20 million, and it increases the 
Watershed Rehabilitation account by the same amount.
  I understand that Members may have some concern with these 
transactions that we are involved with here, but the reason that we are 
doing this today is to accommodate some legitimate concerns raised by 
the authorizing committee about some of the mandatory limitations in 
this bill. I have worked closely with the gentleman from Virginia 
(Chairman Goodlatte) over the years, and I intend to work with him 
closely in the future, especially as he prepares to write a new farm 
bill. While I would have preferred to keep the CCE account funded at 
the highest level possible, I am confident that when we get to the 
conference with the Senate that we will be able to restore funding to 
this account.

[[Page H4224]]

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

                              {time}  1315

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mrs. Capito). Is there further debate on the 
amendment?
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Bonilla).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Butterfield

  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Butterfield:
       Page 3, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 17, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $1,875,000)''.

  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Madam Chairman, I bring this amendment to the floor 
today on behalf of myself, the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca), 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), and the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Scott) in order to provide much needed financial assistance to our 
Nation's minority farmers, and to the 1890 Land Grant Colleges and 
Universities.
  While I generally support this legislation, it falls short, in my 
estimation, in the area of funding for rural development. We must, 
Madam Chairwoman, offer more outreach and more technical assistance to 
our farmers. During fiscal year 1983, President Reagan initiated the 
Small Farmer Outreach Training and Technical Assistance program in 
response to the USDA task force on black farm ownership.
  It reflected a commitment to implement Reagan's Presidential 
Executive Order 123-20 dated September 15, 1981, to support 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities by addressing the many 
civil rights issues that are confronted by the agency.
  This is the only program, the only program implemented by the USDA 
that directly helps minority farmers who are losing their farms at a 
rate that far exceeds their white counterparts. I, therefore, Madam 
Chairman, urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. BONILLA. Madam Chairman, we are willing to accept this amendment 
and move forward.
  Mr. BACA. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Butterfield-Scott-Baca-Reyes amendment.
  This amendment increases the funding to the 2501 Socially 
Disadvantaged Farmer and Rancher program by $2 million from $5.935 
million to $7.935 million.
  These grants are meant to provide outreach and technical assistance 
to encourage and assist socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers to 
own and operate farms and ranches and participate in agricultural 
programs.
  This assistance includes information on application and bidding 
procedures, farm managements, and other essential information to 
participate in agricultural programs.
  These grants may also be awarded to Hispanic Serving Institutions, 
Tribal Colleges and Historically Black Colleges and Universities that 
engage in outreach to minority farmers.
  This program helps to mitigate a long history of unequal treatment of 
minority farmers and ranchers.
  The USDA has already paid over $1 billion to settle discrimination 
lawsuits. By investing in the 2501 program, we can improve 
relationships between the USDA and socially disadvantaged farmers and 
prevent future lawsuits.
  This is a small investment that could potentially save millions in 
the future.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Butterfield-Scott-Baca 
amendment.
  Mr. REYES. Madam Chairman,, I rise in strong support of the 
Butterfield Amendment, which would add $2 million to the USDA's Small 
Farmer Outreach Training and Technical Assistance Program.
  As a young man growing up in the El Paso Upper Valley Community of 
Canutillo, I experienced the many challenges that small and medium 
farmers face daily. My grandfather, father and close family members 
contributed to the operation of the family farms in the El Paso and 
Dell City Valley, Texas.
  Also, throughout my tenure in Congress, I have met with many minority 
farmers from my Congressional District of El Paso, Texas. These 
Hispanic farmers have faced many challenges. Outreach, training, and 
technical assistance are essential to help them succeed in today's 
challenging agriculture economy.
  Unfortunately, while Hispanics are the fastest-growing population in 
the country, they remain a disadvantaged minority when it comes to 
having the resources to own and farm our nation's land. Farming and 
ranching are full time, 24 hour, seven day endeavors, and our small and 
disadvantaged farmers and ranchers merit our consideration and 
assistance. Adequate funding for this program would provide the farmers 
with technical, farm management, and marketing assistance, all of which 
are important to keeping our farmers productive on their land.
  The Small Farmer Outreach Training and Technical Assistance Program 
has made a great impact in the El Paso and Las Cruces region, and 
without the proper funding for the program I fear our farmers will be 
lacking the means to succeed. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me 
in supporting our nation's minority farmers by ensuring the passage of 
this important amendment, and I appreciate the efforts of Mr. 
Butterfield and others on this important issue.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Hinojosa

  Mr. HINOJOSA. Madam Chairman, I offer amendment No. 4 on behalf of 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Hinojosa:
       Under the heading ``Common Computing Environment'', insert 
     after the dollar amount the following: ``(reduced by 
     $855,000)''.

       Under the headings ``Cooperative State Research, Education, 
     and Extension Service'' and ``Research and Education 
     Activities'', insert after the first dollar amount, and after 
     the dollar amount relating to an education grants program for 
     Hispanic-serving Institutions, the following: ``(increased by 
     $855,000)''.

  Mr. HINOJOSA. Madam Chairman, I am offering this amendment on behalf 
of myself and my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).
  I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), 
and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), 
for putting together this bipartisan bill.
  I believe this amendment will be an important improvement. The Baca/
Hinojosa amendment would take $855,000 from the Common Computing 
Environment program and transfer it to the Hispanic Serving 
Institutions Education grant program under the Cooperative State 
Research Education and Extension Service.
  This competitive USDA/HSI grant program is designed to promote and 
strengthen the ability of HSIs to carry out education programs that 
attract, retain, and graduate outstanding students capable of enhancing 
the Nation's food and agriculture, scientific and professional work 
force. This program is making a difference in the Latino community. 
Coastal Bend Community College in Beeville, Texas has used its USDA/HSI 
grant to improve retention, expand and strengthen the agriculture 
curriculum, engage high school students in agriculture-related fields 
through dual enrollment programs, and increase the number of 
articulation agreements with area universities like Texas A at 
Kingsville and many universities throughout the country and the 
territories!
  Although Title VIII of the Farm Bill authorizes $20 million for this 
program, actual appropriations remain at only 28 percent of the 
authorized level.
  Only 2.7 percent of HSI college graduates earn a degree in 
agriculture-related areas. The continued underrepresentation of 
Hispanics in these important areas of agriculture demands a greater 
investment in such programs to expand funding to additional HSIs to 
better meet USDA goals.
  With over 200 HSIs, serving over 1.4 million students, it is time to 
increase the appropriations for this program beyond current levels. Our 
amendment is a modest step in that direction.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. BONILLA. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HINOJOSA. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BONILLA. Madam Chairman, the gentleman has worked very hard on 
this important issue, which is very important to students around the 
country; and we would be happy to accept the amendment and move forward 
and move it to a vote if the gentleman would like.
  Mr. HINOJOSA. I would accept that. If the gentleman from Texas will 
accept the amendment, I will.

[[Page H4225]]

  Mr. BACA. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this amendment, 
which I have introduced with my colleague Congressman Hinojosa.
  This amendment provides an additional $855,000 in funding for grants 
to Hispanic Serving Institutions, which are colleges and universities 
with at least 25 percent Hispanic enrollment. The funding will be 
offset from the Common Computing Environment, which is funded at $130 
million.
  This account was funded at $5.6 million last year. The appropriations 
act for Fiscal Year 2006 funds the account at $5.645 million, only 
$45,000 more than last year's level. The Baca-Hinojosa amendment will 
bring this funding to $6.5 million, the amount requested by the 
Congressional Hispanic Caucus.
  This funding is given out on a competitive basis to Hispanic Serving 
Institutions for agricultural research. These grants increase the 
ability of colleges and universities to serve Hispanic and low-income 
students. In my own district, California State University San 
Bernardino has benefited from these funds in the past.
  Forty-one percent of all USDA research project proposals from HSIs 
are funded, a remarkable success rate for proposal acceptance. Clearly, 
this is a great resource that needs to be further funded to reach its 
true potential.
  Other important institutions that serve minority communities each 
receive more than double the funding of HISs. We must ensure that HSIs 
are funded at the same level as other similar programs.
  I commend Chairman Bonilla for his effort to gradually increase 
funding for Hispanic Serving Institutions. However, an inequity still 
remains and must be corrected.
  If this Congress is going to be dedicated to providing a top-quality 
education for all students in America, then we need to ensure that we 
fully fund HSIs and other institutions that reach out to our 
underserved communities.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Baca-Hinojosa amendment.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Chairman, I rise today, in support of the Baca-
Hinojosa amendment to the agriculture appropriation bill to increase 
funding for Hispanic serving institutions.
  This increase would grant additional funding for 193 of our Nation's 
Hispanic serving colleges and universities who are committed to 
ensuring greater Hispanic representation in higher education in the 
U.S.
  There are 54 Hispanic serving institutions in my home State of 
California, and in my congressional district, which ranks among the 
highest in agriculture producing districts in the country, there are 
four Hispanic serving institutions. One Hispanic serving institution in 
particular that will benefit is UC Merced, an exceptional research 
institution committed to reducing under-representation of valley 
students in the fields of agricultural sciences and natural resources.
  Madam Chairman, I support an increase in ag-related educational 
funding. I believe that it will not only benefit my district but also 
the agricultural education and production of our country on a whole.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Weiner

  Mr. WEINER. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Weiner:
         Page 3, line 12, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $21,000,000)''.
          Page 18, line 12, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     the following: ``(increased by $18,885,000)''.

  Mr. WEINER. Madam Chairman, pictured on this chart is an Asian long-
horned beetle. This is one of the many pests that are under the 
responsibility of APHIS, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service. This is an insect that bores its way into trees, primarily in 
Illinois, in the northeast, and kills them.
  There is no way to stop this pest except by cutting down the tree. 
And we in New York and in New Jersey and Illinois have had to chop down 
a lot of them.
  What my amendment will do is to increase the funding for APHIS, to 
bring it up to the level that the Bush administration proposed in their 
preliminary budget. It is estimated that the amendment that we are 
offering today with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter) and my 
colleagues from New York and others around the country, by increasing 
by $19 million, we will wind up preventing more than $700 billion worth 
of damage to trees throughout the country.
  This is not just a problem that will be solved for the Asian long-
horned beetle. If you have the emerald ash borer in Indiana, Ohio or 
Michigan, or in the Pacific Coast, or suffer from sudden oak death in 
California or Oregon, or are dealing with the glassy-winged 
sharpshooter in California, or of course boll weevils throughout the 
South, all of these are pests which are having a dramatic impact on our 
economy, or is having a budget cut in this round to an unacceptable 
level.
  First let me say of the chairman and the ranking member, they are 
doing a lot with less and less. The staffs of both the minority and 
majority side should be commended for taking a very small allocation 
and trying to make it as best they can. However, what my amendment will 
do is it will take a program that essentially does the computing and 
data processing part of the Agriculture Department and moves it into 
dealing with these pests.
  Obviously, I would like not to have to cut any part of the 
Agriculture Department, but this is an offset that works. We found, 
when this House weighed into this debate in the past and increased 
funding through an amendment on the floor, we wound up having a 
substantial positive impact. When the Asian long-horn beetle was first 
kind of discovered in 1999 here in the east coast, there were 2,500 
trees that were affected. It was down to just 66 in 2004. 
Unfortunately, that downward trend has recently been reversed.
  This, the House bill that we are considering today, allocates $22 
million less for APHIS than President Bush had requested. The Nature 
Conservancy, which studies the impact of pests like the Asian long-horn 
beetles, says that we really need a $44 million increase. We are not 
going to be able to get a $44 million increase in this bill.
  What the amendment does is try to reach a point that we at least 
start to win the battle again, start to lead to a reduction in the 
amount of trees that are infected, not only by the Asian long-horn 
beetle, but by the emerald ash borer and others that I mentioned.
  There is hardly a State in the Union that has not found its trees 
impacted by these pernicious insects. APHIS has been an effective way 
to reverse the course. A combination of research and remediation has 
proven that the dollars spent on these things turn out to be 
extraordinarily helpful. Whether it is the cactus moth or the gypsy 
moth in Washington-Oregon, I would urge my colleagues in virtually 
every State of the Union to look to see if you have an insect that 
represents a pest that is impacting not only the trees in the abstract 
sense of our environment, but also our economy.
  There is hardly a State in the Union that would not benefit from this 
amendment. As I said, I believe that the ranking member, the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), and the chairman, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), deserve great credit for how they 
have done more with less. We are making a minor change to increase the 
funding for APHIS by $19 million to allow even more work.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter), who is sponsoring this 
amendment with some of us in the New York and New Jersey delegation, is 
detained. He is expected on the floor shortly, but he represents, as so 
many other Members do, a bipartisan effort to make sure that insects 
like this are vanquished once and for all.
  Mr. BONILLA. Madam Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.
  Although I certainly understand and share the concerns that many 
Members have about plant, pests and diseases that devastate crops and 
trees, I must say that we have done our absolute best to fund 
eradication and control of plant pests in the bill that you see before 
you today.
  Funding includes, among other things, for the Asian long-horn beetle, 
it is at $15.3 million. Also, across the country, the glassy-winged 
sharpshooter, 24 million; the emerald ash borer, 14 million; Citrus 
canker, $36 million, very important to our Members in Florida. And the 
list goes on.
  Emerging plant pests alone are funded at over $100 million in this 
bill. In addition, tens of millions of dollars go to fund programs to 
stop Medfly, the boll weevil, brucellosis, the gypsy moth, and many 
others. Every Member has some interest represented. And we

[[Page H4226]]

have carefully balanced things out so that agriculture is best 
protected, and that is what we all want.
  Those are the appropriated amounts, and when there is an emergency 
situation, the Secretary has authority to use funds from the Commodity 
Credit Corporation for eradication and control. For sudden oak death, 
an additional $9 million was approved this year, and requests are 
pending for 11 million for the emerald ash borer and $5 million for the 
glassy-winged sharpshooter.
  We are watching the use of emergency funds closely. There is no way 
that appropriated dollars substitute for the emergency funding that 
these agriculture emergencies demand. I am also very concerned about 
the amendment due to the offset proposed to cut the common computing 
environment. I do oppose this amendment once again and urge a ``no'' 
vote.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I rise in support of the Weiner/McCotter amendment and really urge 
all of my colleagues to join them in this important issue. Their 
amendment would merely add $19 million to the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service and raise it to the level that the President put in 
his own budget.
  This would attack all types of invasive species, including the sudden 
oak death, the glassy-winged sharpshooter; but I would like to focus on 
this terrible Asian long-horn beetle, which has had a devastating 
economic and environmental impact in New York State. The Asian long-
horn beetle was first discovered in 1995 in Green Point, Brooklyn, in 
the district that I represent.
  We had to cut down every single tree in one of our beautiful parks in 
Brooklyn, and really cut down trees in a whole section of Brooklyn in 
an attempt to contain this terrible invasive species, which we do not 
know how to get rid of. The one approach that we have now is once you 
discover it, you have to literally chop down the tree, cut it into 
small pieces and burn it.
  That is the only way they know how to get rid of this terrible bug. 
Regrettably, the Asian long-horn beetle moved into Queens and into 
Manhattan. There was a tremendous effort from the city, State and 
Federal Government to contain it, to keep it out of Central Park, which 
is many people's favorite spot in New York; yet, regrettably, 2 months 
ago, the beetle was spotted in Central Park.
  We have had to chop down over 4,000 trees in New York City in our 
attempts to contain this invasive species.

                              {time}  1330

  We need to contain it in New York City. If it moves into upper New 
York and to the Northeast, it could destroy literally all of the trees; 
and it is a problem that really all of us should be concerned about. 
Believe me, my colleagues do not want this invasive species in their 
State. Work with us in supporting this amendment to contain it and 
other invasive species that are found in our country.
  Our amendment merely raises the amount to the amount that President 
Bush put in the budget, and it is an investment in the economy and the 
environment of our State. I urge my colleagues to support the Weiner-
McCotter amendment.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Unfortunately, 
plant diseases are continuously emerging; and they can threaten not 
only our agriculture but our environment and our public health. I think 
that in Connecticut, for instance, I will talk about sudden oak death, 
which has been identified recently. We are looking at potentially 
massive deforestation, and we are working hard at the New Haven 
Experiment Station to cooperate on research on the plant disease before 
our forests of Connecticut are heavily impacted.
  We all know the results of massive deforestation: Bad for our land 
conservation, bad for our environment, and it contributes to the 
lowering of, the actual lowering of our air quality.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Weiner/
McCotter amendment. We need to boost federal funding to fight the 
invasive species that are destroying native trees across the United 
States.
  This amendment would provide an additional $19 million to help fight 
invasive species like the Asian longhorn beetle, the emerald ash borer, 
and the boll weevil. If you've never heard of these insects, or have 
never lost a tree in your district to these invaders, count yourself 
lucky. The emerald ash borer has been simply devastating to ash trees 
in my district in Southeast Michigan. The borer is native to China and 
was only discovered in the United States in 2002, but already it has 
killed more than 7 million ash trees. The emerald ash borer arrived in 
North America years earlier, so we have a huge job on our hands to 
contain this insect and stop its spread.
  I can't overemphasize how destructive this small green insect is. 
Once it gets underneath the bark of an ash tree, the borer will kill 
the tree within a couple years. All species of ash trees are 
vulnerable. It is sobering to see so many beautiful trees that have 
stood in neighborhoods for decades become sick and die. It is also 
extremely costly to homeowners and communities to remove the ash trees 
and replace them.
  By working quickly, we've managed to significantly slow the spread of 
the emerald ash borer, but people need to understand that every ash 
tree in the country is at risk if we don't contain this insect now. So 
far, the infestation has been limited to Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and 
Ontario. To give you some idea of the dimension of the threat, there 
are 750 million ash trees in Michigan alone, and 7.5 billion ash trees 
nationwide. We need to make additional resources available now to fight 
the emerald ash borer, or there will be a much higher price to pay down 
the road.
  I urge the House to support the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mrs. Capito). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
  The question was taken, and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WEINER. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Weiner) will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                 Office of the Chief Financial Officer

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief Financial 
     Officer, $5,874,000: Provided, That the Chief Financial 
     Officer shall actively market and expand cross-servicing 
     activities of the National Finance Center: Provided further, 
     That no funds made available by this appropriation may be 
     obligated for FAIR Act or Circular A-76 activities until the 
     Secretary has submitted to the Committees on Appropriations 
     of both Houses of Congress and the Committee on Government 
     Reform of the House of Representatives a report on the 
     Department's contracting out policies, including agency 
     budgets for contracting out.

           Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, $811,000.

                         Office of Civil Rights

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Civil Rights, 
     $20,109,000.

          Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Assistant Secretary for Administration, $676,000.

        Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For payment of space rental and related costs pursuant to 
     Public Law 92-313, including authorities pursuant to the 1984 
     delegation of authority from the Administrator of General 
     Services to the Department of Agriculture under 40 U.S.C. 
     486, for programs and activities of the Department which are 
     included in this Act, and for alterations and other actions 
     needed for the Department and its agencies to consolidate 
     unneeded space into configurations suitable for release to 
     the Administrator of General Services, and for the operation, 
     maintenance, improvement, and repair of Agriculture buildings 
     and facilities, and for related costs, $183,133,000, to 
     remain available until expended, as follows: for payments to 
     the General Services Administration and the Department of 
     Homeland Security for building security, $147,734,000, and 
     for buildings operations and maintenance, $35,399,000: 
     Provided, That amounts which are made available for space 
     rental and related costs for the Department of Agriculture in 
     this Act may be transferred between such appropriations to 
     cover the costs of additional, new, or replacement space 15 
     days after notice thereof is transmitted to the 
     Appropriations Committees of both Houses of Congress.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Platts

  Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:


[[Page H4227]]


       Amendment offered by Mr. Platts:
       Page 5, line 8, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $2,650,000)''.
       Page 5, line 13, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $2,650,000)''.
       Page 18, line 12, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $1,227,000)''.
  Mr. PLATTS. Madam Chairman, this amendment I offer would increase 
funding for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, APHIS, by 
$1.227 million for the purpose of eradicating plum pox disease. This 
funding effort would allow for the total amount of funding for this 
program at APHIS to be $3.443 million, the same level that was 
appropriated in fiscal year 2005.
  The amendment I offer is important to the fruit growers both in 
Pennsylvania and across our Nation. It would help to bring an end to 
the most significant and destructive virus that affects our stone fruit 
grower, plum pox. The virus is extremely damaging to fruit production. 
The plum pox virus is capable of causing disease in fruits such as 
peaches, plums, apricots, nectarines, sweet and sour cherries. Tree 
yields can be severely affected. Some reports claim 80 to 100 percent 
premature fruit drop in some plum varieties. Infected fruit may be 
unsightly and difficult to sell as table fruit. Export of fruit is 
difficult; export of budwood and nursery stock is next to impossible.
  With the discovery of plum pox virus in Pennsylvania in September of 
1999, a survey and eradication program was put in place. Through 5 
years of survey, research and control action, the program has been 
successful in both containing and almost completely eradicating the 
virus. In fact, in 2004, for the first time no plum pox virus was found 
outside of existing quarantine areas. Three years of negative data in 
several of these quarantine areas allowed the rescinding of those 
quarantines. After 5 years of testing, no plum pox virus has been found 
in the United States outside the remaining quarantine zone in 
Pennsylvania.
  Although we have made considerable progress, the virus is still 
present. As evidence of the virus' persistence, on June 3 of this year, 
last week, the Pennsylvania Secretary of Agriculture announced the 
discovery of plum pox virus in Adams County once again. Both the 
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture and the United States Department 
of Agriculture are currently following the standard procedures to 
survey and quarantine the area in question.
  Level fund for the plum pox virus program at APHIS will likely 
eradicate this virus from both Pennsylvania and the United States, 
thereby being a smart Federal investment. Without adequate funding, the 
plum pox virus program will not be able to complete an appropriate 
survey and the associated procedures, which in turn will leave 
questions about the status of the virus. Eradication of the virus may 
not be completed and the possibility of virus spreading beyond the 
quarantine area will be left open.
  Complete eradication of the plum pox virus, on the other hand, will 
allow U.S. stone fruits and nursery industries to continue operating 
without further impairment by this virus menace.
  Level funding, as this amendment proposes, is critical to helping to 
eradicate this devastating disease once and for all.
  Mr. WEINER. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Madam Chairman, I commend the gentleman for acknowledging what I 
think we all should in the last amendment, that we are not giving 
funding, sufficient funding to this APHIS account.
  Now the gentleman's amendment does not speak to plum pox because that 
would be legislating, so I would encourage the gentleman to support my 
amendment which we just voted on here because it would permit plum pox. 
That was one of the many pests on the list that would be increased in 
that case.
  But I commend the gentleman. He is exactly right. Just like in the 
gentleman's district, in the gentleman's State, just like in New York, 
just like in Louisiana with imported fire ants, just like in Texas with 
the Mexican fruit fly, just like in California with the Mediterranean 
fruit fly, this is an underfunded area. We will never get it what they 
probably should ultimately get, but at least we should give them a 
little more, and I think the gentleman is exactly right.
  Plum pox, Asian long horn beetle, this is another reason why I hope 
all of my colleagues will support the amendment that we just voted down 
and will be having a recorded vote on later.
  Mr. BONILLA. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition the gentleman's 
amendment.
  This is a very important issue, and we tried our best to fund it at 
the appropriate level. I have had discussions with the gentleman about 
trying to work with him as we move to conference to attempt to increase 
this line item somewhat, to address the problem that the gentleman is 
addressing in a very sincere way here today.
  Mr. PLATTS. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONILLA. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the difficult fiscal 
times we are in. The gentleman and his staff have done a great job of 
trying to balance all the concerns, and certainly I appreciate the 
gentleman's efforts and his staff's efforts to address this specific 
concern. I look forward to working with the gentleman as we go to 
conference with the Senate. In light of that effort, when we get to 
conference, I will be glad withdraw the amendment at the time and work 
with the gentleman and his staff in the months to come.
  Mr. BONILLA. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. PLATTS. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  Mr. WEINER. Madam Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would 
ask the author of the amendment that would increase by $1 million, does 
he intend to support the amendment that was just passed that would 
increase the account that he wants to solve the problem in by $19 
million?
  Mr. PLATTS. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WEINER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. PLATTS. I will be glad to take a more in-depth look at that 
amendment. I think we all have a shared purpose, but we will look at 
the specifics of the amendment.
  Mr. WEINER. Madam Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                     Hazardous Materials Management


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

       For necessary expenses of the Department of Agriculture, to 
     comply with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) and 
     the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et 
     seq.), $15,644,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That appropriations and funds available herein to 
     the Department for Hazardous Materials Management may be 
     transferred to any agency of the Department for its use in 
     meeting all requirements pursuant to the above Acts on 
     Federal and non-Federal lands.

                      Departmental Administration


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

       For Departmental Administration, $23,103,000, to provide 
     for necessary expenses for management support services to 
     offices of the Department and for general administration, 
     security, repairs and alterations, and other miscellaneous 
     supplies and expenses not otherwise provided for and 
     necessary for the practical and efficient work of the 
     Department: Provided, That this appropriation shall be 
     reimbursed from applicable appropriations in this Act for 
     travel expenses incident to the holding of hearings as 
     required by 5 U.S.C. 551-558.

                 Office of the Assistant Secretary for

                        Congressional Relations


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations to carry out 
     the programs funded by this Act, including programs involving 
     intergovernmental affairs and liaison within the executive 
     branch, $3,821,000: Provided, That these funds may be 
     transferred to agencies of the Department of Agriculture 
     funded by this Act to maintain personnel at the agency level: 
     Provided further, That no funds made available by this 
     appropriation may be obligated after 30 days from the date of 
     enactment of this Act, unless the Secretary has notified the 
     Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress on 
     the allocation of these funds by USDA agency: Provided 
     further, That no

[[Page H4228]]

     other funds appropriated to the Department by this Act shall 
     be available to the Department for support of activities of 
     congressional relations.

                        Office of Communications

       For necessary expenses to carry out services relating to 
     the coordination of programs involving public affairs, for 
     the dissemination of agricultural information, and the 
     coordination of information, work, and programs authorized by 
     Congress in the Department, $9,509,000: Provided, That not to 
     exceed $2,000,000 may be used for farmers' bulletins.

                    Office of the Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Inspector 
     General, including employment pursuant to the Inspector 
     General Act of 1978, $79,626,000, including such sums as may 
     be necessary for contracting and other arrangements with 
     public agencies and private persons pursuant to section 
     6(a)(9) of the Inspector General Act of 1978, and including 
     not to exceed $125,000 for certain confidential operational 
     expenses, including the payment of informants, to be expended 
     under the direction of the Inspector General pursuant to 
     Public Law 95-452 and section 1337 of Public Law 97-98.

                     Office of the General Counsel

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the General 
     Counsel, $38,439,000.

  Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics to 
     administer the laws enacted by the Congress for the Economic 
     Research Service, the National Agricultural Statistics 
     Service, the Agricultural Research Service, and the 
     Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, 
     $598,000.

                       Economic Research Service

       For necessary expenses of the Economic Research Service in 
     conducting economic research and analysis, as authorized by 
     the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627) 
     and other laws, $75,931,000.

                National Agricultural Statistics Service

       For necessary expenses of the National Agricultural 
     Statistics Service in conducting statistical reporting and 
     service work, including crop and livestock estimates, 
     statistical coordination and improvements, marketing surveys, 
     and the Census of Agriculture, as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 
     1621-1627 and 2204g, and other laws, $136,241,000, of which 
     up to $29,115,000 shall be available until expended for the 
     Census of Agriculture.

                     AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses to enable the Agricultural Research 
     Service to perform agricultural research and demonstration 
     relating to production, utilization, marketing, and 
     distribution (not otherwise provided for); home economics or 
     nutrition and consumer use including the acquisition, 
     preservation, and dissemination of agricultural information; 
     and for acquisition of lands by donation, exchange, or 
     purchase at a nominal cost not to exceed $100, and for land 
     exchanges where the lands exchanged shall be of equal value 
     or shall be equalized by a payment of money to the grantor 
     which shall not exceed 25 percent of the total value of the 
     land or interests transferred out of Federal ownership, 
     $1,035,475,000: Provided, That appropriations hereunder shall 
     be available for the operation and maintenance of aircraft 
     and the purchase of not to exceed one for replacement only: 
     Provided further, That appropriations hereunder shall be 
     available pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2250 for the construction, 
     alteration, and repair of buildings and improvements, but 
     unless otherwise provided, the cost of constructing any one 
     building shall not exceed $375,000, except for headhouses or 
     greenhouses which shall each be limited to $1,200,000, and 
     except for 10 buildings to be constructed or improved at a 
     cost not to exceed $750,000 each, and the cost of altering 
     any one building during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10 
     percent of the current replacement value of the building or 
     $375,000, whichever is greater: Provided further, That the 
     limitations on alterations contained in this Act shall not 
     apply to modernization or replacement of existing facilities 
     at Beltsville, Maryland: Provided further, That 
     appropriations hereunder shall be available for granting 
     easements at the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center: 
     Provided further, That the foregoing limitations shall not 
     apply to replacement of buildings needed to carry out the 
     Act of April 24, 1948 (21 U.S.C. 113a): Provided further, 
     That funds may be received from any State, other political 
     sub-division, organization, or individual for the purpose 
     of establishing or operating any research facility or 
     research project of the Agricultural Research Service, as 
     authorized by law: Provided further, That the Secretary, 
     through the Agricultural Research Service, or successor, 
     is authorized to lease approximately 40 acres of land at 
     the Central Plains Experiment Station, Nunn, Colorado, to 
     the Board of Governors of the Colorado State University 
     System, for its Shortgrass Steppe Biological Field 
     Station, on such terms and conditions as the Secretary 
     deems in the public interest: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary understands that it is the intent of the 
     University to construct research and educational buildings 
     on the subject acreage and to conduct agricultural 
     research and educational activities in these buildings: 
     Provided further, That as consideration for a lease, the 
     Secretary may accept the benefits of mutual cooperative 
     research to be conducted by the Colorado State University 
     and the Government at the Shortgrass Steppe Biological 
     Field Station: Provided further, That the term of any 
     lease shall be for no more than 20 years, but a lease may 
     be renewed at the option of the Secretary on such terms 
     and conditions as the Secretary deems in the public 
     interest.
       None of the funds appropriated under this heading shall be 
     available to carry out research related to the production, 
     processing, or marketing of tobacco or tobacco products.

                        Buildings and Facilities

       For acquisition of land, construction, repair, improvement, 
     extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or 
     facilities as necessary to carry out the agricultural 
     research programs of the Department of Agriculture, where not 
     otherwise provided, $87,300,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

      Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

                   Research and Education Activities

       For payments to agricultural experiment stations, for 
     cooperative forestry and other research, for facilities, and 
     for other expenses, $661,691,000, as follows: to carry out 
     the provisions of the Hatch Act of 1887 (7 U.S.C. 361a-i), 
     $178,807,000; for grants for cooperative forestry research 
     (16 U.S.C. 582a through a-7), $22,255,000; for payments to 
     the 1890 land-grant colleges, including Tuskegee University 
     and West Virginia State University (7 U.S.C. 3222), 
     $37,704,000, of which $1,507,496 shall be made available only 
     for the purpose of ensuring that each institution shall 
     receive no less than $1,000,000; for special grants for 
     agricultural research (7 U.S.C. 450i(c)), $92,064,000; for 
     special grants for agricultural research on improved pest 
     control (7 U.S.C. 450i(c)), $15,038,000; for competitive 
     research grants (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)), $214,634,000; for the 
     support of animal health and disease programs (7 U.S.C. 
     3195), $5,057,000; for supplemental and alternative crops and 
     products (7 U.S.C. 3319d), $1,187,000; for grants for 
     research pursuant to the Critical Agricultural Materials Act 
     (7 U.S.C. 178 et seq.), $1,102,000, to remain available until 
     expended; for the 1994 research grants program for 1994 
     institutions pursuant to section 536 of Public Law 103-382 (7 
     U.S.C. 301 note), $1,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended; for rangeland research grants (7 U.S.C. 3333), 
     $1,000,000; for higher education graduate fellowship grants 
     (7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(6)), $4,500,000, to remain available until 
     expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b); for higher education challenge 
     grants (7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(1)), $5,500,000; for a higher 
     education multicultural scholars program (7 U.S.C. 
     3152(b)(5)), $998,000, to remain available until expended (7 
     U.S.C. 2209b); for an education grants program for Hispanic-
     serving Institutions (7 U.S.C. 3241), $5,645,000; for 
     noncompetitive grants for the purpose of carrying out all 
     provisions of 7 U.S.C. 3242 (section 759 of Public Law 106-
     78) to individual eligible institutions or consortia of 
     eligible institutions in Alaska and in Hawaii, with funds 
     awarded equally to each of the States of Alaska and Hawaii, 
     $2,997,000; for a secondary agriculture education program and 
     2-year post-secondary education (7 U.S.C. 3152(j)), 
     $1,000,000; for aquaculture grants (7 U.S.C. 3322), 
     $3,968,000; for sustainable agriculture research and 
     education (7 U.S.C. 5811), $12,400,000; for a program of 
     capacity building grants (7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(4)) to colleges 
     eligible to receive funds under the Act of August 30, 1890 (7 
     U.S.C. 321-326 and 328), including Tuskegee University and 
     West Virginia State University, $12,312,000, to remain 
     available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b); for payments to 
     the 1994 Institutions pursuant to section 534(a)(1) of Public 
     Law 103-382, $2,250,000; for resident instruction grants for 
     insular areas under section 1491 of the National Agricultural 
     Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 
     U.S.C. 3363), $500,000; and for necessary expenses of 
     Research and Education Activities, $39,773,000, of which 
     $2,750,000 for the Research, Education, and Economics 
     Information System and $2,173,000 for the Electronic Grants 
     Information System, are to remain available until expended.
       None of the funds appropriated under this heading shall be 
     available to carry out research related to the production, 
     processing, or marketing of tobacco or tobacco products: 
     Provided, That this paragraph shall not apply to research on 
     the medical, biotechnological, food, and industrial uses of 
     tobacco.

              Native American Institutions Endowment Fund

       For the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund 
     authorized by Public Law 103-382 (7 U.S.C. 301 note), 
     $12,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                          Extension Activities

       For payments to States, the District of Columbia, Puerto 
     Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, Micronesia, Northern 
     Marianas, and American Samoa, $444,871,000, as follows: 
     payments for cooperative extension work under the Smith-Lever 
     Act, to be distributed under sections 3(b) and 3(c) of said 
     Act, and under section 208(c) of Public Law 93-471, for 
     retirement and employees' compensation costs for extension 
     agents, $275,940,000; payments for extension work at the 1994 
     Institutions under the Smith-Lever Act (7 U.S.C. 343(b)(3)), 
     $3,273,000; payments for the nutrition and family education 
     program for low-income areas under section 3(d) of the Act,

[[Page H4229]]

     $62,409,000; payments for the pest management program under 
     section 3(d) of the Act, $10,000,000; payments for the farm 
     safety program under section 3(d) of the Act, $4,563,000; 
     payments for New Technologies for Ag Extension under section 
     3(d) of the Act, $1,000,000; payments to upgrade research, 
     extension, and teaching facilities at the 1890 land-grant 
     colleges, including Tuskegee University and West Virginia 
     State University, as authorized by section 1447 of Public Law 
     95-113 (7 U.S.C. 3222b), $16,777,000, to remain available 
     until expended; payments for youth-at-risk programs under 
     section 3(d) of the Smith-Lever Act, $7,978,000; for youth 
     farm safety education and certification extension grants, to 
     be awarded competitively under section 3(d) of the Act, 
     $444,000; payments for carrying out the provisions of the 
     Renewable Resources Extension Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 1671 et 
     seq.), $4,060,000; payments for Indian reservation agents 
     under section 3(d) of the Smith-Lever Act, $1,996,000; 
     payments for sustainable agriculture programs under section 
     3(d) of the Act, $4,067,000; payments for rural health and 
     safety education as authorized by section 502(i) of Public 
     Law 92-419 (7 U.S.C. 2662(i)), $1,965,000; payments for 
     cooperative extension work by the colleges receiving the 
     benefits of the second Morrill Act (7 U.S.C. 321-326 and 328) 
     and Tuskegee University and West Virginia State University, 
     $33,868,000, of which $1,724,884 shall be made available 
     only for the purpose of ensuring that each institution 
     shall receive no less than $1,000,000; and for necessary 
     expenses of Extension Activities, $16,531,000.

                         Integrated Activities

       For the integrated research, education, and extension 
     grants programs, including necessary administrative expenses, 
     $15,513,000, as follows: for a competitive international 
     science and education grants program authorized under section 
     1459A of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and 
     Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3292b), to remain 
     available until expended, $1,000,000; for grants programs 
     authorized under section 2(c)(1)(B) of Public Law 89-106, as 
     amended, $1,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2007 for the critical issues program, and $1,513,000 for the 
     regional rural development centers program; and $12,000,000 
     for the Food and Agriculture Defense Initiative authorized 
     under section 1484 of the National Agricultural Research, 
     Extension, and Teaching Act of 1977, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2007.

              Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers

       For grants and contracts pursuant to section 2501 of the 
     Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 
     U.S.C. 2279), $5,935,000, to remain available until expended.

  Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs to 
     administer programs under the laws enacted by the Congress 
     for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; the 
     Agricultural Marketing Service; and the Grain Inspection, 
     Packers and Stockyards Administration; $724,000.

               ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE

                         Salaries and Expenses


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary to 
     prevent, control, and eradicate pests and plant and animal 
     diseases; to carry out inspection, quarantine, and regulatory 
     activities; and to protect the environment, as authorized by 
     law, $823,635,000, of which $4,140,000 shall be available for 
     the control of outbreaks of insects, plant diseases, animal 
     diseases and for control of pest animals and birds to the 
     extent necessary to meet emergency conditions; of which 
     $38,634,000 shall be used for the boll weevil eradication 
     program for cost share purposes or for debt retirement for 
     active eradication zones; of which $33,340,000 shall be 
     available for a National Animal Identification program: 
     Provided, That no funds shall be used to formulate or 
     administer a brucellosis eradication program for the current 
     fiscal year that does not require minimum matching by the 
     States of at least 40 percent: Provided further, That this 
     appropriation shall be available for the operation and 
     maintenance of aircraft and the purchase of not to exceed 
     four, of which two shall be for replacement only: Provided 
     further, That, in addition, in emergencies which threaten any 
     segment of the agricultural production industry of this 
     country, the Secretary may transfer from other appropriations 
     or funds available to the agencies or corporations of the 
     Department such sums as may be deemed necessary, to be 
     available only in such emergencies for the arrest and 
     eradication of contagious or infectious disease or pests of 
     animals, poultry, or plants, and for expenses in accordance 
     with sections 10411 and 10417 of the Animal Health Protection 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 8310 and 8316) and sections 431 and 442 of the 
     Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7751 and 7772), and any 
     unexpended balances of funds transferred for such emergency 
     purposes in the preceding fiscal year shall be merged with 
     such transferred amounts: Provided further, That 
     appropriations hereunder shall be available pursuant to law 
     (7 U.S.C. 2250) for the repair and alteration of leased 
     buildings and improvements, but unless otherwise provided the 
     cost of altering any one building during the fiscal year 
     shall not exceed 10 percent of the current replacement value 
     of the building:
       In fiscal year 2006, the agency is authorized to collect 
     fees to cover the total costs of providing technical 
     assistance, goods, or services requested by States, other 
     political subdivisions, domestic and international 
     organizations, foreign governments, or individuals, provided 
     that such fees are structured such that any entity's 
     liability for such fees is reasonably based on the technical 
     assistance, goods, or services provided to the entity by the 
     agency, and such fees shall be credited to this account, to 
     remain available until expended, without further 
     appropriation, for providing such assistance, goods, or 
     services.

                        Buildings and Facilities

       For plans, construction, repair, preventive maintenance, 
     environmental support, improvement, extension, alteration, 
     and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities, as authorized 
     by 7 U.S.C. 2250, and acquisition of land as authorized by 7 
     U.S.C. 428a, $4,996,000, to remain available until expended.

                     AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE

                           Marketing Services

       For necessary expenses to carry out services related to 
     consumer protection, agricultural marketing and distribution, 
     transportation, and regulatory programs, as authorized by 
     law, and for administration and coordination of payments to 
     States, $78,032,000, including funds for the wholesale market 
     development program for the design and development of 
     wholesale and farmer market facilities for the major 
     metropolitan areas of the country: Provided, That this 
     appropriation shall be available pursuant to law (7 U.S.C. 
     2250) for the alteration and repair of buildings and 
     improvements, but the cost of altering any one building 
     during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10 percent of the 
     current replacement value of the building.
       Fees may be collected for the cost of standardization 
     activities, as established by regulation pursuant to law (31 
     U.S.C. 9701).


                 LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

       Not to exceed $65,667,000 (from fees collected) shall be 
     obligated during the current fiscal year for administrative 
     expenses: Provided, That if crop size is understated and/or 
     other uncontrollable events occur, the agency may exceed this 
     limitation by up to 10 percent with notification to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.

    Funds for Strengthening Markets, Income, and Supply (Section 32)


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

       Funds available under section 32 of the Act of August 24, 
     1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c), shall be used only for commodity 
     program expenses as authorized therein, and other related 
     operating expenses, except for: (1) transfers to the 
     Department of Commerce as authorized by the Fish and Wildlife 
     Act of August 8, 1956; (2) transfers otherwise provided in 
     this Act; and (3) not more than $16,055,000 for formulation 
     and administration of marketing agreements and orders 
     pursuant to the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 
     and the Agricultural Act of 1961.

                   Payments to States and Possessions

       For payments to departments of agriculture, bureaus and 
     departments of markets, and similar agencies for marketing 
     activities under section 204(b) of the Agricultural Marketing 
     Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1623(b)), $1,347,000.

        GRAIN INSPECTION, PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ADMINISTRATION

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the 
     United States Grain Standards Act, for the administration of 
     the Packers and Stockyards Act, for certifying procedures 
     used to protect purchasers of farm products, and the 
     standardization activities related to grain under the 
     Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, $38,400,000: Provided, 
     That this appropriation shall be available pursuant to law (7 
     U.S.C. 2250) for the alteration and repair of buildings and 
     improvements, but the cost of altering any one building 
     during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10 percent of the 
     current replacement value of the building.

        Limitation on Inspection and Weighing Services Expenses

       Not to exceed $42,463,000 (from fees collected) shall be 
     obligated during the current fiscal year for inspection and 
     weighing services: Provided, That if grain export activities 
     require additional supervision and oversight, or other 
     uncontrollable factors occur, this limitation may be exceeded 
     by up to 10 percent with notification to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.

             Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Food Safety to administer the laws 
     enacted by the Congress for the Food Safety and Inspection 
     Service, $590,000.

                   FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses to carry out services authorized by 
     the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products 
     Inspection Act, and the Egg Products Inspection Act, 
     including not to exceed $50,000 for representation allowances 
     and for expenses pursuant to section 8 of the Act approved 
     August 3, 1956 (7 U.S.C. 1766), $837,264,000, of which no 
     less than $756,152,000 shall be available for

[[Page H4230]]

     Federal food safety inspection; and in addition, $1,000,000 
     may be credited to this account from fees collected for the 
     cost of laboratory accreditation as authorized by section 
     1327 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 
     1990 (7 U.S.C. 138f): Provided, That of the total amount made 
     available under this heading, no less than $20,653,000 shall 
     be obligated for regulatory and scientific training: Provided 
     further, That this appropriation shall be available pursuant 
     to law (7 U.S.C. 2250) for the alteration and repair of 
     buildings and improvements, but the cost of altering any one 
     building during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10 percent 
     of the current replacement value of the building.

    Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural 
                                Services

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services to 
     administer the laws enacted by Congress for the Farm Service 
     Agency, the Foreign Agricultural Service, the Risk Management 
     Agency, and the Commodity Credit Corporation, $635,000.

                          FARM SERVICE AGENCY

                         Salaries and Expenses


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

       For necessary expenses for carrying out the administration 
     and implementation of programs administered by the Farm 
     Service Agency, $1,023,738,000: Provided, That the Secretary 
     is authorized to use the services, facilities, and 
     authorities (but not the funds) of the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation to make program payments for all programs 
     administered by the Agency: Provided further, That other 
     funds made available to the Agency for authorized activities 
     may be advanced to and merged with this account.

                         State Mediation Grants

       For grants pursuant to section 502(b) of the Agricultural 
     Credit Act of 1987, as amended (7 U.S.C. 5101-5106), 
     $4,250,000.

                        Dairy Indemnity Program


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

       For necessary expenses involved in making indemnity 
     payments to dairy farmers and manufacturers of dairy products 
     under a dairy indemnity program, $100,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That such program is 
     carried out by the Secretary in the same manner as the dairy 
     indemnity program described in the Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-387, 114 
     Stat. 1549A-12).

           Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

       For gross obligations for the principal amount of direct 
     and guaranteed farm ownership (7 U.S.C. 1922 et seq.) and 
     operating (7 U.S.C. 1941 et seq.) loans, Indian tribe land 
     acquisition loans (25 U.S.C. 488), and boll weevil loans (7 
     U.S.C. 1989), to be available from funds in the Agricultural 
     Credit Insurance Fund, as follows: farm ownership loans, 
     $1,600,000,000, of which $1,400,000,000 shall be for 
     guaranteed loans and $200,000,000 shall be for direct loans; 
     operating loans, $2,116,256,000, of which $1,200,000,000 
     shall be for unsubsidized guaranteed loans, $266,256,000 
     shall be for subsidized guaranteed loans and $650,000,000 
     shall be for direct loans; Indian tribe land acquisition 
     loans, $2,020,000; and for boll weevil eradication program 
     loans, $100,000,000: Provided, That the Secretary shall deem 
     the pink bollworm to be a boll weevil for the purpose of boll 
     weevil eradication program loans.
       For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, including the 
     cost of modifying loans as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as follows: farm ownership 
     loans, $16,960,000, of which $6,720,000 shall be for 
     guaranteed loans, and $10,240,000 shall be for direct loans; 
     operating loans, $134,317,000, of which $36,360,000 shall be 
     for unsubsidized guaranteed loans, $33,282,000 shall be for 
     subsidized guaranteed loans, and $64,675,000 shall be for 
     direct loans; and Indian tribe land acquisition loans, 
     $81,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $305,127,000, of 
     which $297,127,000 shall be transferred to and merged with 
     the appropriation for ``Farm Service Agency, Salaries and 
     Expenses''.
       Funds appropriated by this Act to the Agricultural Credit 
     Insurance Program Account for farm ownership and operating 
     direct loans and guaranteed loans may be transferred among 
     these programs: Provided, That the Committees on 
     Appropriations of both Houses of Congress are notified at 
     least 15 days in advance of any transfer.

                         RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY

                 Administrative and Operating Expenses

       For administrative and operating expenses, as authorized by 
     section 226A of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization 
     Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6933), $77,806,000: Provided, That not 
     to exceed $1,000 shall be available for official reception 
     and representation expenses, as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 
     1506(i).

                              Corporations

       The following corporations and agencies are hereby 
     authorized to make expenditures, within the limits of funds 
     and borrowing authority available to each such corporation or 
     agency and in accord with law, and to make contracts and 
     commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as 
     provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control 
     Act as may be necessary in carrying out the programs set 
     forth in the budget for the current fiscal year for such 
     corporation or agency, except as hereinafter provided.

                Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund

       For payments as authorized by section 516 of the Federal 
     Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1516), such sums as may be 
     necessary, to remain available until expended.

                   Commodity Credit Corporation Fund


                 REIMBURSEMENT FOR NET REALIZED LOSSES

       For the current fiscal year, such sums as may be necessary 
     to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for net 
     realized losses sustained, but not previously reimbursed, 
     pursuant to section 2 of the Act of August 17, 1961 (15 
     U.S.C. 713a-11): Provided, That of the funds available to the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation under section 11 of the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714i) for 
     the conduct of its business with the Foreign Agricultural 
     Service, up to $5,000,000 may be transferred to and used by 
     the Foreign Agricultural Service for information resource 
     management activities of the Foreign Agricultural Service 
     that are not related to Commodity Credit Corporation 
     business.


                       HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT

                        (LIMITATION ON EXPENSES)

       For the current fiscal year, the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation shall not expend more than $5,000,000 for site 
     investigation and cleanup expenses, and operations and 
     maintenance expenses to comply with the requirement of 
     section 107(g) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9607(g)), and 
     section 6001 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 6961).

                                TITLE II

                         CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

  Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment to 
     administer the laws enacted by the Congress for the Forest 
     Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service, 
     $744,000.

                 NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE

                        Conservation Operations

       For necessary expenses for carrying out the provisions of 
     the Act of April 27, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 590a-f), including 
     preparation of conservation plans and establishment of 
     measures to conserve soil and water (including farm 
     irrigation and land drainage and such special measures for 
     soil and water management as may be necessary to prevent 
     floods and the siltation of reservoirs and to control 
     agricultural related pollutants); operation of conservation 
     plant materials centers; classification and mapping of soil; 
     dissemination of information; acquisition of lands, water, 
     and interests therein for use in the plant materials 
     program by donation, exchange, or purchase at a nominal 
     cost not to exceed $100 pursuant to the Act of August 3, 
     1956 (7 U.S.C. 428a); purchase and erection or alteration 
     or improvement of permanent and temporary buildings; and 
     operation and maintenance of aircraft, $793,640,000, to 
     remain available until March 31, 2007, of which not less 
     than $10,457,000 is for snow survey and water forecasting, 
     and not less than $10,547,000 is for operation and 
     establishment of the plant materials centers, and of which 
     not less than $27,312,000 shall be for the grazing lands 
     conservation initiative: Provided, That appropriations 
     hereunder shall be available pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2250 for 
     construction and improvement of buildings and public 
     improvements at plant materials centers, except that the 
     cost of alterations and improvements to other buildings 
     and other public improvements shall not exceed $250,000: 
     Provided further, That when buildings or other structures 
     are erected on non-Federal land, that the right to use 
     such land is obtained as provided in 7 U.S.C. 2250a: 
     Provided further, That this appropriation shall be 
     available for technical assistance and related expenses to 
     carry out programs authorized by section 202(c) of title 
     II of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 
     1974 (43 U.S.C. 1592(c)): Provided further, That qualified 
     local engineers may be temporarily employed at per diem 
     rates to perform the technical planning work of the 
     Service.

                     Watershed Surveys and Planning

       For necessary expenses to conduct research, investigation, 
     and surveys of watersheds of rivers and other waterways, and 
     for small watershed investigations and planning, in 
     accordance with the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 1001-1009), $7,026,000.

               Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations

       For necessary expenses to carry out preventive measures, 
     including but not limited to research, engineering 
     operations, methods of cultivation, the growing of 
     vegetation, rehabilitation of existing works and changes in 
     use of land, in accordance with the Watershed Protection and 
     Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1001-1005 and 1007-1009), the 
     provisions of the Act of April 27, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 590a-f), 
     and in accordance with the provisions of laws relating to the 
     activities of the Department, $60,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended; of which up to $10,000,000 may be 
     available for the watersheds authorized under the Flood 
     Control Act (33 U.S.C.

[[Page H4231]]

     701 and 16 U.S.C. 1006a): Provided, That not to exceed 
     $25,000,000 of this appropriation shall be available for 
     technical assistance: Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $1,000,000 of this appropriation is available to carry out 
     the purposes of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Public 
     Law 93-205), including cooperative efforts as contemplated by 
     that Act to relocate endangered or threatened species to 
     other suitable habitats as may be necessary to expedite 
     project construction.

                    Watershed Rehabilitation Program

       For necessary expenses to carry out rehabilitation of 
     structural measures, in accordance with section 14 of the 
     Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1012), and in accordance with the provisions of laws relating 
     to the activities of the Department, $27,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                 Resource Conservation and Development

       For necessary expenses in planning and carrying out 
     projects for resource conservation and development and for 
     sound land use pursuant to the provisions of sections 31 and 
     32 of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (7 U.S.C. 1010-1011; 
     76 Stat. 607); the Act of April 27, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 590a-f); 
     and subtitle H of title XV of the Agriculture and Food Act of 
     1981 (16 U.S.C. 3451-3461), $51,360,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That the Secretary shall enter into 
     a cooperative or contribution agreement, within 45 days of 
     enactment of this Act, with a national association regarding 
     a Resource Conservation and Development program and such 
     agreement shall contain the same matching, contribution 
     requirements, and funding level, set forth in a similar 
     cooperative or contribution agreement with a national 
     association in fiscal year 2002: Provided further, That not 
     to exceed $3,411,000 shall be available for national 
     headquarters activities.

                               TITLE III

                       RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

          Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Rural Development to administer programs 
     under the laws enacted by the Congress for the Rural Housing 
     Service, the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, and the 
     Rural Utilities Service of the Department of Agriculture, 
     $627,000.

                  Rural Community Advancement Program


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For the cost of direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants, 
     as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1926, 1926a, 1926c, 1926d, and 
     1932, except for sections 381E-H and 381N of the Consolidated 
     Farm and Rural Development Act, $657,389,000, to remain 
     available until expended, of which $38,006,000 shall be for 
     rural community programs described in section 381E(d)(1) of 
     such Act; of which $531,162,000 shall be for the rural 
     utilities programs described in sections 381E(d)(2), 
     306C(a)(2), and 306D of such Act, of which not to exceed 
     $500,000 shall be available for the rural utilities program 
     described in section 306(a)(2)(B) of such Act, and of which 
     not to exceed $1,000,000 shall be available for the rural 
     utilities program described in section 306E of such Act; and 
     of which $88,221,000 shall be for the rural business and 
     cooperative development programs described in sections 
     381E(d)(3) and 310B(f) of such Act: Provided, That of the 
     total amount appropriated in this account, $24,000,000 shall 
     be for loans and grants to benefit Federally Recognized 
     Native American Tribes, including grants for drinking water 
     and waste disposal systems pursuant to section 306C of such 
     Act, of which $4,000,000 shall be available for community 
     facilities grants to tribal colleges, as authorized by 
     section 306(a)(19) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act, and of which $250,000 shall be available for 
     a grant to a qualified national organization to provide 
     technical assistance for rural transportation in order to 
     promote economic development: Provided further, That of the 
     amount appropriated for rural community programs, $6,200,000 
     shall be available for a Rural Community Development 
     Initiative: Provided further, That such funds shall be used 
     solely to develop the capacity and ability of private, 
     nonprofit community-based housing and community development 
     organizations, low-income rural communities, and Federally 
     Recognized Native American Tribes to undertake projects to 
     improve housing, community facilities, community and economic 
     development projects in rural areas: Provided further, That 
     such funds shall be made available to qualified private, 
     nonprofit and public intermediary organizations proposing to 
     carry out a program of financial and technical assistance: 
     Provided further, That such intermediary organizations shall 
     provide matching funds from other sources, including Federal 
     funds for related activities, in an amount not less than 
     funds provided: Provided further, That of the amount 
     appropriated for the rural business and cooperative 
     development programs, not to exceed $500,000 shall be made 
     available for a grant to a qualified national organization to 
     provide technical assistance for rural transportation in 
     order to promote economic development; $1,000,000 shall be 
     for grants to the Delta Regional Authority (7 U.S.C. 1921 et 
     seq.) for any purpose under this heading: Provided further, 
     That of the amount appropriated for rural utilities programs, 
     not to exceed $25,000,000 shall be for water and waste 
     disposal systems to benefit the Colonias along the United 
     States/Mexico border, including grants pursuant to section 
     306C of such Act; not to exceed $17,500,000 shall be for 
     technical assistance grants for rural water and waste 
     systems pursuant to section 306(a)(14) of such Act, unless 
     the Secretary makes a determination of extreme need, of 
     which $5,600,000 shall be for Rural Community Assistance 
     Programs; and not to exceed $14,000,000 shall be for 
     contracting with qualified national organizations for a 
     circuit rider program to provide technical assistance for 
     rural water systems: Provided further, That of the total 
     amount appropriated, not to exceed $21,367,000 shall be 
     available through June 30, 2006, for authorized 
     empowerment zones and enterprise communities and 
     communities designated by the Secretary of Agriculture as 
     Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones; of which $1,067,000 
     shall be for the rural community programs described in 
     section 381E(d)(1) of such Act, of which $12,000,000 shall 
     be for the rural utilities programs described in section 
     381E(d)(2) of such Act, and of which $8,300,000 shall be 
     for the rural business and cooperative development 
     programs described in section 381E(d)(3) of such Act: 
     Provided further, That any prior year balances for high 
     cost energy grants authorized by section 19 of the Rural 
     Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901(19)) shall be 
     transferred to and merged with the ``Rural Utilities 
     Service, High Energy Costs Grants Account''.

                           RURAL DEVELOPMENT

                         Salaries and Expenses


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses for carrying out the administration 
     and implementation of programs in the Rural Development 
     mission area, including activities with institutions 
     concerning the development and operation of agricultural 
     cooperatives; and for cooperative agreements; $152,623,000: 
     Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     funds appropriated under this section may be used for 
     advertising and promotional activities that support the Rural 
     Development mission area: Provided further, That not more 
     than $10,000 may be expended to provide modest nonmonetary 
     awards to non-USDA employees: Provided further, That any 
     balances available from prior years for the Rural Utilities 
     Service, Rural Housing Service, and the Rural Business-
     Cooperative Service salaries and expenses accounts shall be 
     transferred to and merged with this appropriation.

                         RURAL HOUSING SERVICE

              Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For gross obligations for the principal amount of direct 
     and guaranteed loans as authorized by title V of the Housing 
     Act of 1949, to be available from funds in the rural housing 
     insurance fund, as follows: $4,821,832,000 for loans to 
     section 502 borrowers, as determined by the Secretary, of 
     which $1,140,799,000 shall be for direct loans, and of which 
     $3,681,033,000 shall be for unsubsidized guaranteed loans; 
     $35,969,000 for section 504 housing repair loans; 
     $100,000,000 for section 515 rental housing; $100,000,000 for 
     section 538 guaranteed multi-family housing loans; $5,000,000 
     for section 524 site loans; $11,500,000 for credit sales of 
     acquired property, of which up to $1,500,000 may be for 
     multi-family credit sales; and $5,048,000 for section 523 
     self-help housing land development loans.
       For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, including the 
     cost of modifying loans, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as follows: section 502 
     loans, $170,837,000, of which $129,937,000 shall be for 
     direct loans, and of which $40,900,000, to remain available 
     until expended, shall be for unsubsidized guaranteed loans; 
     section 504 housing repair loans, $10,521,000; section 515 
     rental housing, $45,880,000; section 538 multi-family housing 
     guaranteed loans, $5,420,000; multi-family credit sales of 
     acquired property, $681,000; and section 523 self-help 
     housing and development loans, $52,000: Provided, That of the 
     total amount appropriated in this paragraph, $2,500,000 shall 
     be available through June 30, 2006, for authorized 
     empowerment zones and enterprise communities and communities 
     designated by the Secretary of Agriculture as Rural Economic 
     Area Partnership Zones.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $455,242,000, 
     which shall be transferred to and merged with the 
     appropriation for ``Rural Development, Salaries and 
     Expenses''.

                       Rental Assistance Program

       For rental assistance agreements entered into or renewed 
     pursuant to the authority under section 521(a)(2) or 
     agreements entered into in lieu of debt forgiveness or 
     payments for eligible households as authorized by section 
     502(c)(5)(D) of the Housing Act of 1949, $650,026,000; and, 
     in addition, such sums as may be necessary, as authorized by 
     section 521(c) of the Act, to liquidate debt incurred prior 
     to fiscal year 1992 to carry out the rental assistance 
     program under section 521(a)(2) of the Act: Provided, That of 
     this amount, $5,900,000 shall be available for debt 
     forgiveness or payments for eligible households as authorized 
     by section 502(c)(5)(D) of the Act, and not to exceed $20,000 
     per project for advances to non-profit organizations or 
     public agencies to cover direct costs (other than purchase 
     price) incurred in purchasing projects pursuant to section 
     502(c)(5)(C) of the Act: Provided further, That agreements

[[Page H4232]]

     entered into or renewed during the current fiscal year shall 
     be funded for a four-year period: Provided further, That any 
     unexpended balances remaining at the end of such four-year 
     agreements may be transferred and used for the purposes of 
     any debt reduction; maintenance, repair, or rehabilitation of 
     any existing projects; preservation; and rental assistance 
     activities authorized under title V of the Act.

                  Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants

       For grants and contracts pursuant to section 523(b)(1)(A) 
     of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1490c), $34,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That of the total 
     amount appropriated, $1,000,000 shall be available through 
     June 30, 2006, for authorized empowerment zones and 
     enterprise communities and communities designated by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture as Rural Economic Area Partnership 
     Zones.

                    Rural Housing Assistance Grants

       For grants and contracts for very low-income housing 
     repair, supervisory and technical assistance, compensation 
     for construction defects, and rural housing preservation made 
     by the Rural Housing Service, as authorized by 42 U.S.C. 
     1474, 1479(c), 1490e, and 1490m, $41,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That of the total amount 
     appropriated, $1,200,000 shall be available through June 30, 
     2006, for authorized empowerment zones and enterprise 
     communities and communities designated by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture as Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones.

                       Farm Labor Program Account

       For the cost of direct loans, grants, and contracts, as 
     authorized by 42 U.S.C. 1484 and 1486, $32,728,000, to remain 
     available until expended, for direct farm labor housing loans 
     and domestic farm labor housing grants and contracts.

                   RURAL BUSINESS-COOPERATIVE SERVICE

              Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

       For the principal amount of direct loans, as authorized by 
     the Rural Development Loan Fund (42 U.S.C. 9812(a)), 
     $34,212,000.
       For the cost of direct loans, $14,718,000, as authorized by 
     the Rural Development Loan Fund (42 U.S.C. 9812(a)), of which 
     $1,724,000 shall be available through June 30, 2006, for 
     Federally Recognized Native American Tribes and of which 
     $3,449,000 shall be available through June 30, 2006, for the 
     Delta Regional Authority (7 U.S.C. 1921 et seq.): Provided, 
     That such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, 
     shall be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That of the total 
     amount appropriated, $887,000 shall be available through June 
     30, 2006, for the cost of direct loans for authorized 
     empowerment zones and enterprise communities and communities 
     designated by the Secretary of Agriculture as Rural Economic 
     Area Partnership Zones.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     direct loan programs, $4,719,000 shall be transferred to and 
     merged with the appropriation for ``Rural Development, 
     Salaries and Expenses''.

            Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account


                    (Including Rescission of funds)

       For the principal amount of direct loans, as authorized 
     under section 313 of the Rural Electrification Act, for the 
     purpose of promoting rural economic development and job 
     creation projects, $25,003,000.
       For the cost of direct loans, including the cost of 
     modifying loans as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, $4,993,000, to remain 
     available until expended.
       Of the funds derived from interest on the cushion of credit 
     payments in the current fiscal year, as authorized by section 
     313 of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, $18,877,000 
     shall not be obligated and $18,877,000 are rescinded.

                  Rural Cooperative Development Grants

       For rural cooperative development grants authorized under 
     section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932), $24,000,000, of which 
     $500,000 shall be for cooperative research agreements; and of 
     which $2,500,000 shall be for cooperative agreements for the 
     appropriate technology transfer for rural areas program: 
     Provided, That not to exceed $1,000,000 shall be for 
     cooperatives or associations of cooperatives whose primary 
     focus is to provide assistance to small, minority producers 
     and whose governing board and/or membership is comprised of 
     at least 75 percent minority; and of which not to exceed 
     $15,500,000, to remain available until expended, shall be for 
     value-added agricultural product market development grants, 
     as authorized by section 6401 of the Farm Security and Rural 
     Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 1621 note).

                 Rural Empowerment Zones and Enterprise

                            Community Grants

       For grants in connection with second and third rounds of 
     empowerment zones and enterprise communities, $10,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended, for designated rural 
     empowerment zones and rural enterprise communities, as 
     authorized by the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 and the Omnibus 
     Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 
     1999 (Public Law 105-277): Provided, That of the funds 
     appropriated, $1,000,000 shall be made available to third 
     round empowerment zones, as authorized by the Community 
     Renewal Tax Relief Act (Public Law 106-554).

                        Renewable Energy Program

       For the cost of a program of direct loans, loan guarantees, 
     and grants, under the same terms and conditions as authorized 
     by section 9006 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 
     of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8106), $23,000,000 for direct and 
     guaranteed renewable energy loans and grants: Provided, That 
     the cost of direct loans and loan guarantees, including the 
     cost of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 
     502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

              Rural Electrification and Telecommunications

                         Loans Program Account


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

       Insured loans pursuant to the authority of section 305 of 
     the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 935) shall be 
     made as follows: 5 percent rural electrification loans, 
     $100,000,000; municipal rate rural electric loans, 
     $100,000,000; loans made pursuant to section 306 of that Act, 
     rural electric, $2,100,000,000; Treasury rate direct electric 
     loans, $1,000,000,000; guaranteed under-writing loans 
     pursuant to section 313A, $1,000,000,000; 5 percent rural 
     telecommunications loans, $145,000,000; cost of money rural 
     telecommunications loans, $424,000,000; and for loans made 
     pursuant to section 306 of that Act, rural telecommunications 
     loans, $125,000,000.
       For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, including the cost of 
     modifying loans, of direct and guaranteed loans authorized by 
     sections 305 and 306 of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 
     (7 U.S.C. 935 and 936), as follows: cost of rural electric 
     loans, $6,160,000, and the cost of telecommunications loans, 
     $212,000: Provided, That notwithstanding section 305(d)(2) of 
     the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, borrower interest 
     rates may exceed 7 percent per year.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $38,907,000 
     which shall be transferred to and merged with the 
     appropriation for ``Rural Development, Salaries and 
     Expenses''.

                  Rural Telephone Bank Program Account


                     (including transfer of funds)

       The Rural Telephone Bank is hereby authorized to make such 
     expenditures, within the limits of funds available to such 
     corporation in accord with law, and to make such contracts 
     and commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as 
     provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control 
     Act, as may be necessary in carrying out its authorized 
     programs.
       For administrative expenses, including audits, necessary to 
     continue to service existing loans, $2,500,000, which shall 
     be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     ``Rural Development, Salaries and Expenses''.
       Of the unobligated balances from the Rural Telephone Bank 
     Liquidating Account, $2,500,000 shall not be obligated and 
     $2,500,000 are rescinded.

         Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program

       For the principal amount of direct distance learning and 
     telemedicine loans, $50,000,000; and for the principal amount 
     of direct broadband telecommunication loans, $463,860,000.
       For the cost of direct loans and grants for telemedicine 
     and distance learning services in rural areas, as authorized 
     by 7 U.S.C. 950aaa et seq., $25,750,000, to remain available 
     until expended, of which $750,000 shall be for direct loans: 
     Provided, That the cost of direct loans shall be as defined 
     in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       For the cost of broadband loans, as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 
     901 et seq., $9,973,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That the interest rate for such loans shall be the 
     cost of borrowing to the Department of the Treasury for 
     obligations of comparable maturity: Provided further, That 
     the cost of direct loans shall be as defined in section 502 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       In addition, $9,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, for a grant program to finance broadband 
     transmission in rural areas eligible for Distance Learning 
     and Telemedicine Program benefits authorized by 7 U.S.C. 
     950aaa.

                                TITLE IV

                         DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services to 
     administer the laws enacted by the Congress for the Food and 
     Nutrition Service, $599,000.

                       FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE

                        Child Nutrition Programs


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out the National School 
     Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.), except section 21, and 
     the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.), 
     except sections 17 and 21; $12,412,027,000, to remain 
     available through September 30, 2007, of which $7,224,406,000 
     is hereby appropriated and $5,187,621,000 shall be derived by 
     transfer from funds available under section 32 of the Act of 
     August 24, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c): Provided, That none of the 
     funds made available

[[Page H4233]]

     under this heading shall be used for studies and evaluations: 
     Provided further, That up to $5,235,000 shall be available 
     for independent verification of school food service claims.

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children 
                                 (WIC)

       For necessary expenses to carry out the special 
     supplemental nutrition program as authorized by section 17 of 
     the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786), 
     $5,257,000,000, to remain available through September 30, 
     2007: Provided, That of the total amount available, the 
     Secretary shall obligate not less than $15,000,000 for a 
     breastfeeding support initiative in addition to the 
     activities specified in section 17(h)(3)(A): Provided 
     further, That only the provisions of section 17(h)(10)(B)(i) 
     shall be effective in 2006; including $14,000,000 for the 
     purposes specified in section 17(h)(10)(B)(i): Provided 
     further, That none of the funds made available under this 
     heading shall be used for studies and evaluations: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds in this Act shall be 
     available to pay administrative expenses of WIC clinics 
     except those that have an announced policy of prohibiting 
     smoking within the space used to carry out the program: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds provided in this 
     account shall be available for the purchase of infant formula 
     except in accordance with the cost containment and 
     competitive bidding requirements specified in section 17 of 
     such Act: Provided further, That on or after October 1, 2005, 
     or the date of enactment of this act, whichever is later, any 
     individual seeking certification or recertification for 
     benefits under the income eligibility provisions of section 
     17(d)(2)(iii) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 shall meet 
     such eligibility requirements only if the income, as 
     determined under title XIX of the Social Security Act, of the 
     individual or the family of which the individual is a member 
     is less than 250 percent of the applicable nonfarm income 
     poverty guideline: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     provided shall be available for activities that are not fully 
     reimbursed by other Federal Government departments or 
     agencies unless authorized by section 17 of such Act.

                           Food Stamp Program

       For necessary expenses to carry out the Food Stamp Act (7 
     U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), $40,711,395,000, of which 
     $3,000,000,000 to remain available through September 30, 
     2007, shall be placed in reserve for use only in such amounts 
     and at such times as may become necessary to carry out 
     program operations: Provided, That none of the funds made 
     available under this heading shall be used for studies and 
     evaluations: Provided further, That funds provided herein 
     shall be expended in accordance with section 16 of the Food 
     Stamp Act: Provided further, That this appropriation shall be 
     subject to any work registration or workfare requirements as 
     may be required by law: Provided further, That funds made 
     available for Employment and Training under this heading 
     shall remain available until expended, as authorized by 
     section 16(h)(1) of the Food Stamp Act: Provided further, 
     That notwithstanding section 5(d) of the Food Stamp Act of 
     1977, any additional payment received under chapter 5 of 
     title 37, United States Code, by a member of the United 
     States Armed Forces deployed to a designated combat zone 
     shall be excluded from household income for the duration of 
     the member's deployment if the additional pay is the result 
     of deployment to or while serving in a combat zone, and it 
     was not received immediately prior to serving in the combat 
     zone.

                      Commodity Assistance Program

       For necessary expenses to carry out disaster assistance and 
     the commodity supplemental food program as authorized by 
     section 4(a) of the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act 
     of 1973 (7 U.S.C. 612c note); the Emergency Food Assistance 
     Act of 1983; special assistance (in a form determined by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture) for the nuclear affected islands, 
     as authorized by section 103(f)(2) of the Compact of Free 
     Association Amendments Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-188); and 
     the Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, as authorized by 
     section 17(m) of the Child Nutrition Act of 
     1966, $178,797,000, to remain available through September 
     30, 2007: Provided, That none of these funds shall be 
     available to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation 
     for commodities donated to the program: Provided further, 
     That notwithstanding any other provision of law, effective 
     with funds made available in fiscal year 2006 to support 
     the Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, as 
     authorized by section 4402 of Public Law 107-171, such 
     funds shall remain available through September 30, 2007.

                   Nutrition Programs Administration

       For necessary administrative expenses of the domestic 
     nutrition assistance programs funded under this Act, 
     $140,761,000.

                                TITLE V

                      FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE

                         Salaries and Expenses


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

       For necessary expenses of the Foreign Agricultural Service, 
     including carrying out title VI of the Agricultural Act of 
     1954 (7 U.S.C. 1761-1768), market development activities 
     abroad, and for enabling the Secretary to coordinate and 
     integrate activities of the Department in connection with 
     foreign agricultural work, including not to exceed $158,000 
     for representation allowances and for expenses pursuant to 
     section 8 of the Act approved August 3, 1956 (7 U.S.C. 1766), 
     $148,224,000: Provided, That the Service may utilize advances 
     of funds, or reimburse this appropriation for expenditures 
     made on behalf of Federal agencies, public and private 
     organizations and institutions under agreements executed 
     pursuant to the agricultural food production assistance 
     programs (7 U.S.C. 1737) and the foreign assistance programs 
     of the United States Agency for International Development.

  Public Law 480 Title I Direct Credit and Food for Progress Program 
                                Account


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

       For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of agreements under the 
     Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, 
     and the Food for Progress Act of 1985, including the cost of 
     modifying credit arrangements under said Acts, $65,040,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That the 
     Secretary of Agriculture may implement a commodity 
     monetization program under existing provisions of the Food 
     for Progress Act of 1985 to provide no less than $5,000,000 
     in local-currency funding support for rural electrification 
     development overseas.

                              {time}  1345


                             Point of Order

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I raise a point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mrs. Capito). The gentleman will state his point 
of order.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I make a point of order to the 
provision in title V Public Law 480 title I Direct Credit and Food for 
Progress Program Account, that begins with the colon on page 54, line 4 
through ``overseas'' on line 9 of H.R. 2744, the Agricultural, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.
  I make a point of order against the provision that begins with the 
colon on page 54, line 4 through ``overseas'' on line 9 in that it 
violates House rule XXI, clause 2 by changing existing law and 
inserting legislative language in an appropriations bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order? If not, the Chair will rule.
  The Chair finds that this provision includes language conferring 
authority. The provision, therefore, constitutes legislation in 
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained, and 
the provision is stricken from the bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     credit program of title I, Public Law 83-480, and the Food 
     for Progress Act of 1985, to the extent funds appropriated 
     for Public Law 83-480 are utilized, $3,385,000, of which 
     $168,000 may be transferred to and merged with the 
     appropriation for ``Foreign Agricultural Service, Salaries 
     and Expenses'', and of which $3,217,000 may be transferred to 
     and merged with the appropriation for ``Farm Service Agency, 
     Salaries and Expenses''.

        Public Law 480 Title I Ocean Freight Differential Grants


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

       For ocean freight differential costs for the shipment of 
     agricultural commodities under title I of the Agricultural 
     Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 and under the 
     Food for Progress Act of 1985, $11,940,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That funds made available 
     for the cost of agreements under title I of the Agricultural 
     Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 and for title I 
     ocean freight differential may be used interchangeably 
     between the two accounts with prior notice to the Committees 
     on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.

                     Public Law 480 Title II Grants

       For expenses during the current fiscal year, not otherwise 
     recoverable, and unrecovered prior years' costs, including 
     interest thereon, under the Agricultural Trade Development 
     and Assistance Act of 1954, for commodities supplied in 
     connection with dispositions abroad under title II of said 
     Act, $1,107,094,000, to remain available until expended.

       Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loans Program Account


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

       For administrative expenses to carry out the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation's export guarantee program, GSM 102 and 
     GSM 103, $5,279,000; to cover common overhead expenses as 
     permitted by section 11 of the Commodity Credit Corporation 
     Charter Act and in conformity with the Federal Credit Reform 
     Act of 1990, of which $3,440,000 may be transferred to and 
     merged with the appropriation for ``Foreign Agricultural 
     Service, Salaries and Expenses'', and of which $1,839,000 may 
     be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     ``Farm Service Agency, Salaries and Expenses''.

[[Page H4234]]

  McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition 
                             Program Grants

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 3107 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 
     2002 (7 U.S.C. 1736o-1), $100,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation is authorized to provide the services, 
     facilities, and authorities for the purpose of implementing 
     such section, subject to reimbursement from amounts provided 
     herein.

                                TITLE VI

                      FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Food and Drug Administration, 
     including hire and purchase of passenger motor vehicles; for 
     payment of space rental and related costs pursuant to Public 
     Law 92-313 for programs and activities of the Food and Drug 
     Administration which are included in this Act; for rental of 
     special purpose space in the District of Columbia or 
     elsewhere; for miscellaneous and emergency expenses of 
     enforcement activities, authorized and approved by the 
     Secretary and to be accounted for solely on the Secretary's 
     certificate, not to exceed $25,000; and notwithstanding 
     section 521 of Public Law 107-188; $1,837,928,000: Provided, 
     That of the amount provided under this heading, $305,332,000 
     shall be derived from prescription drug user fees authorized 
     by 21 U.S.C. 379h, shall be credited to this account and 
     remain available until expended, and shall not include any 
     fees pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 379h(a)(2) and (a)(3) assessed for 
     fiscal year 2007 but collected in fiscal year 2006; 
     $40,300,000 shall be derived from medical device user fees 
     authorized by 21 U.S.C. 379j, and shall be credited to 
     this account and remain available until expended; and 
     $11,318,000 shall be derived from animal drug user fees 
     authorized by 21 U.S.C. 379j, and shall be credited to 
     this account and remain available until expended: Provided 
     further, That fees derived from prescription drug, medical 
     device, and animal drug assessments received during fiscal 
     year 2006, including any such fees assessed prior to the 
     current fiscal year but credited during the current year, 
     shall be subject to the fiscal year 2006 limitation: 
     Provided further, That none of these funds shall be used 
     to develop, establish, or operate any program of user fees 
     authorized by 31 U.S.C. 9701: Provided further, That of 
     the total amount appropriated: (1) $444,095,000 shall be 
     for the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition and 
     related field activities in the Office of Regulatory 
     Affairs; (2) $519,814,000 shall be for the Center for Drug 
     Evaluation and Research and related field activities in 
     the Office of Regulatory Affairs; (3) $178,713,000 shall 
     be for the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research 
     and for related field activities in the Office of 
     Regulatory Affairs; (4) $99,787,000 shall be for the 
     Center for Veterinary Medicine and for related field 
     activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs; (5) 
     $243,939,000 shall be for the Center for Devices and 
     Radiological Health and for related field activities in 
     the Office of Regulatory Affairs; (6) $41,152,000 shall be 
     for the National Center for Toxicological Research; (7) 
     $58,515,000 shall be for Rent and Related activities, of 
     which $21,974,000 is for White Oak Consolidation, other 
     than the amounts paid to the General Services 
     Administration for rent; (8) $134,853,000 shall be for 
     payments to the General Services Administration for rent; 
     and (9) $117,060,000 shall be for other activities, 
     including the Office of the Commissioner; the Office of 
     Management; the Office of External Relations; the Office 
     of Policy and Planning; and central services for these 
     offices: Provided further, That of the funds provided 
     herein for other activities, $5,853,000 may not be 
     obligated until the Commissioner or Acting Commissioner 
     has presented public testimony on the President's 2006 
     budget request before the Committee on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives: Provided further, That funds 
     may be transferred from one specified activity to another 
     with the prior approval of the Committees on 
     Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
       In addition, mammography user fees authorized by 42 U.S.C. 
     263b may be credited to this account, to remain available 
     until expended.
       In addition, export certification user fees authorized by 
     21 U.S.C. 381 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, $5,000,000 to remain available until 
     expended.

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                  Commodity Future 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, and the rental 
     of space (to include multiple year leases) in the District of 
     Columbia and elsewhere, $98,386,000, including not to exceed 
     $3,000 for official reception and representation expenses.

                       FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

                 Limitation on Administrative Expenses

       Not to exceed $44,250,000 (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.

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that title VII be 
considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any 
point.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Forbes). Is there objection to the request 
of the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The text of title VII is as follows:

                     TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS


                    (INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

       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 320 passenger 
     motor vehicles, of which 320 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. Funds appropriated by this Act shall be available 
     for employment pursuant to the second sentence of section 
     706(a) of the Department of Agriculture Organic Act of 1944 
     (7 U.S.C. 2225) and 5 U.S.C. 3109.
       Sec. 704. New obligational authority provided for the 
     following appropriation items in this Act shall remain 
     available until expended: Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
     Service, the contingency fund to meet emergency conditions, 
     information technology infrastructure, fruit fly program, 
     emerging plant pests, boll weevil program, up to $8,000,000 
     in the low pathogen avian influenza program for indemnities, 
     up to $1,500,000 in the scrapie program for indemnities, up 
     to $33,340,000 in animal health monitoring and surveillance 
     for the animal identification system, up to $3,009,000 in the 
     emergency management systems program for the vaccine bank, up 
     to $1,000,000 of the wildlife services operations program for 
     aviation safety, and up to 25 percent of the screwworm 
     program; Food Safety and Inspection Service, field automation 
     and information management project; Cooperative State 
     Research, Education, and Extension Service, funds for 
     competitive research grants (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)); Farm Service 
     Agency, salaries and expenses funds made available to county 
     committees; Foreign Agricultural Service, middle-income 
     country training program, and up to $1,565,000 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. 705. The Secretary of Agriculture may transfer 
     unobligated balances of discretionary funds appropriated by 
     this Act or other available unobligated discretionary 
     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 of 
     primary benefit to the agencies of the Department of 
     Agriculture: 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: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds transferred to the Working Capital Fund pursuant to 
     this section shall be available for obligation without the 
     prior approval of the Committees on Appropriations of both 
     Houses of Congress.
       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).
       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. 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. 710. 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 20 percent of total Federal 
     funds provided under each award: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding

[[Page H4235]]

     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. 711. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     all loan levels provided in this Act shall be considered 
     estimates, not limitations.
       Sec. 712. 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 Electrification and Telecommunication 
     Loans program account, and the Rural Housing Insurance Fund 
     program account.
       Sec. 713. Of the funds made available by this Act, not more 
     than $1,800,000 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. 714. 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. 715. 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. 716. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available to the Department of Agriculture or the Food and 
     Drug Administration shall be used to transmit or otherwise 
     make available to any non-Department of Agriculture or non-
     Department of Health and Human Services employee questions or 
     responses to questions that are a result of information 
     requested for the appropriations hearing process.
       Sec. 717. 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: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     available to the Department of Agriculture for information 
     technology shall be obligated for projects over $25,000 prior 
     to receipt of written approval by the Chief Information 
     Officer.
       Sec. 718. (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, which-ever 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.
       (c) The Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services, or the Chairman of the Commodity Futures 
     Trading Commission shall notify the Committees on 
     Appropriations of both Houses of Congress before implementing 
     a program or activity not carried out during the previous 
     fiscal year unless the program or activity is funded by this 
     Act or specifically funded by any other Act.
       Sec. 719. With the exception of funds needed to administer 
     and conduct oversight of grants awarded and obligations 
     incurred in prior fiscal years, 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. 720. None of the funds appropriated by this 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, Food and Drug Administration, 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 2007 
     appropriations Act.
       Sec. 721. None of the funds made available by this or any 
     other Act may be used to close or relocate a State Rural 
     Development office unless or until cost effectiveness and 
     enhancement of program delivery have been determined.
       Sec. 722. In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated or 
     made available by this Act, $2,500,000 is appropriated for 
     the purpose of providing Bill Emerson and Mickey Leland 
     Hunger Fellowships, through the Congressional Hunger Center.
       Sec. 723. Notwithstanding section 412 of the Agricultural 
     Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 
     1736f), any balances available to carry out title III of such 
     Act as of the date of enactment of this Act, and any 
     recoveries and reimbursements that become available to carry 
     out title III of such Act, may be used to carry out title II 
     of such Act.
       Sec. 724. Section 375(e)(6)(B) of the Consolidated Farm and 
     Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2008j(e)(6)(B)) is amended by 
     striking ``$27,998,000'' and inserting ``$28,498,000''.
       Sec. 725. Of any shipments of commodities made pursuant to 
     section 416(b) of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 
     1431(b)), the Secretary of Agriculture shall, to the extent 
     practicable, direct that tonnage equal in value to not more 
     than $25,000,000 shall be made available to foreign countries 
     to assist in mitigating the effects of the Human 
     Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency 
     Syndrome on communities, including the provision of--
       (1) agricultural commodities to--
       (A) individuals with Human Immunodeficiency Virus or 
     Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome in the communities; and
       (B) households in the communities, particularly individuals 
     caring for orphaned children; and
       (2) agricultural commodities monetized to provide other 
     assistance (including assistance under microcredit and 
     microenterprise programs) to create or restore sustainable 
     livelihoods among individuals in the communities, 
     particularly individuals caring for orphaned children.
       Sec. 726. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Natural Resources Conservation Service shall provide 
     financial and technical assistance to the Kane County, 
     Illinois, Indian Creek Watershed Flood Prevention Project, 
     from funds available for the Watershed and Flood Prevention 
     Operations program, not to exceed $1,000,000 and Hickory 
     Creek Special Drainage District, Bureau County, Illinois, not 
     to exceed $50,000.
       Sec. 727. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality 
     of the United States Government, except pursuant to a 
     transfer made by, or transfer authority provided in, this or 
     any other appropriation Act.
       Sec. 728. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of 
     the funds made available in this Act for competitive research 
     grants (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)), the Secretary may use up to 22 
     percent of the amount provided to carry out a competitive 
     grants program under the same terms and conditions as those 
     provided in section 401 of the Agricultural Research, 
     Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7621).
       Sec. 729. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     by this or any other Act may be used to pay the salaries and 
     expenses of personnel to carry out section 14(h)(1) of the 
     Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1012(h)(1)).
       Sec. 730. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     by this or any other Act may be used to pay the salaries and 
     expenses of personnel to carry out subtitle I of the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2009dd 
     through dd-7).
       Sec. 731. Agencies and offices of the Department of 
     Agriculture may utilize any unobligated salaries and expenses 
     funds to reimburse the Office of the General Counsel for 
     salaries and expenses of personnel, and for other related 
     expenses, incurred in representing such agencies and offices 
     in the resolution of complaints by employees or applicants 
     for employment, and in cases and

[[Page H4236]]

     other matters pending before the Equal Employment Opportunity 
     Commission, the Federal Labor Relations Authority, or the 
     Merit Systems Protection Board with the prior approval of the 
     Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
       Sec. 732. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     by this or any other Act may be used to pay the salaries and 
     expenses of personnel to carry out section 6405 of Public Law 
     107-171 (7 U.S.C. 2655).
       Sec. 733. Of the funds made available under section 27(a) 
     of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), the 
     Secretary may use up to $10,000,000 for costs associated with 
     the distribution of commodities.
       Sec. 734. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this or any other Act shall be used to pay the 
     salaries and expenses of personnel to enroll in excess of 
     154,500 acres in the calendar year 2006 wetlands reserve 
     program as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 3837.
       Sec. 735. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this or any other 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 
     $1,012,000,000.
       Sec. 736. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this or any other Act shall be used to pay the 
     salaries and expenses of personnel to expend the $23,000,000 
     made available by section 9006(f) of the Farm Security and 
     Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8106(f)).
       Sec. 737. With the exception of funds provided in fiscal 
     year 2003, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this or any other Act shall be used to pay the 
     salaries and expenses of personnel to expend the $50,000,000 
     made available by section 601(j)(1)(A) of the Rural 
     Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 950bb(j)(1)(A)).
       Sec. 738. None of the funds made available in fiscal year 
     2005 or preceding fiscal years for programs authorized under 
     the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 
     (7 U.S.C. 1691 et seq.) in excess of $20,000,000 shall be 
     used to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for the 
     release of eligible commodities under section 302(f)(2)(A) of 
     the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust Act (7 U.S.C. 1736f-1): 
     Provided, That any such funds made available to reimburse the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation shall only be used pursuant to 
     section 302(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Bill Emerson Humanitarian 
     Trust Act.
       Sec. 739. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this or any other Act shall be used to pay the 
     salaries and expenses of personnel to expend the $120,000,000 
     made available by section 6401(a) of Public Law 107-171.
       Sec. 740. Notwithstanding subsections (c) and (e)(2) of 
     section 313A of the Rural Electrification Act (7 U.S.C. 
     940c(c) and (e)(2)) in implementing section 313A of that Act, 
     the Secretary shall, with the consent of the lender, 
     structure the schedule for payment of the annual fee, not to 
     exceed an average of 30 basis points per year for the term of 
     the loan, to ensure that sufficient funds are available to 
     pay the subsidy costs for note guarantees under that section.
       Sec. 741. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this or any other Act shall be used to pay the 
     salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out a 
     Conservation Security Program authorized by 16 U.S.C. 3838 et 
     seq., in excess of $258,000,000.
       Sec. 742. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this or any other Act shall be used to pay the 
     salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out section 2502 
     of Public Law 107-171 in excess of $60,000,000.
       Sec. 743. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this or any other Act shall be used to pay the 
     salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out section 2503 
     of Public Law 107-171 in excess of $83,500,000.
       Sec. 744. With the exception of funds provided in fiscal 
     year 2005, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this or any other Act shall be used to carry out 
     section 6029 of Public Law 107-171.
       Sec. 745. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this Act shall be expended to violate Public Law 
     105-264.
       Sec. 746. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this or any other Act shall be used to pay the 
     salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out a ground and 
     surface water conservation program authorized by section 2301 
     of Public Law 107-171 in excess of $51,000,000.
       Sec. 747. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to issue a final rule in furtherance of, or otherwise 
     implement, the proposed rule on cost-sharing for animal and 
     plant health emergency programs of the Animal and Plant 
     Health Inspection Service published on July 8, 2003 (Docket 
     No. 02-062-1; 68 Fed. Reg. 40541).
       Sec. 748. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to study, complete a study of, or enter into a 
     contract with a private party to carry out, without specific 
     authorization in a subsequent Act of Congress, a competitive 
     sourcing activity of the Secretary of Agriculture, including 
     support personnel of the Department of Agriculture, relating 
     to rural development or farm loan programs.
       Sec. 749. Hereafter, notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary of Agriculture may use appropriations 
     available to the Secretary for activities authorized under 
     sections 426-426c of title 7, United States Code, under this 
     or any other Act, to enter into cooperative agreements, with 
     a State, political subdivision, or agency thereof, a public 
     or private agency, organization, or any other person, to 
     lease aircraft 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 Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
     Service, Wildlife Services; and (2) all parties will 
     contribute resources to the accomplishment of these 
     objectives; award of a cooperative agreement authorized by 
     the Secretary may be made for an initial term not to exceed 5 
     years.
       Sec. 750. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this or any other Act shall be used to pay the 
     salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out section 9010 
     of Public Law 107-171 in excess of $60,000,000.
       Sec. 751. Agencies and offices of the Department of 
     Agriculture may utilize any available discretionary funds to 
     cover the costs of preparing, or contracting for the 
     preparation of, final agency decisions regarding complaints 
     of discrimination in employment or program activities arising 
     within such agencies and offices.
       Sec. 752. Funds made available under section 1240I and 
     section 1241(a) of the Food Security Act of 1985 in fiscal 
     year 2006 shall remain available until expended to cover 
     obligations made in fiscal year 2006, and are not available 
     for new obligations.
       Sec. 753. None of the funds made available under this Act 
     shall be available to pay the administrative expenses of a 
     State agency that, after the date of enactment of this Act 
     and prior to implementation of interim final regulations 
     regarding vendor cost containment in accordance with the 
     provisions set forth in section 17(h)(11)(G) of the Child 
     Nutrition Act of 1966, authorizes any new for-profit 
     vendor(s) to transact food instruments under the Special 
     Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and 
     Children if it is expected that more than 50 percent of the 
     annual revenue of the vendor from the sale of food items will 
     be derived from the sale of supplemental foods that are 
     obtained with WIC food instruments, except that the Secretary 
     may approve the authorization of such a vendor if the 
     approval is necessary to assure participant access to program 
     benefits or is in accordance with the provisions set forth in 
     section 17(h)(11)(E) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966.
       Sec. 754. There is hereby appropriated $1,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended, for a grant to the Ohio 
     Livestock Expo Center in Springfield, Ohio.
       Sec. 755. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this or any other Act shall be used to pay the 
     salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out an 
     Agricultural Management Assistance Program as authorized by 
     section 524 of the Federal Crop Insurance Act in excess of 
     $6,000,000 (7 U.S.C. 1524).
       Sec. 756. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this or any other Act shall be used to pay the 
     salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out a Biomass 
     Research and Development Program in excess of $12,000,000, as 
     authorized by Public Law 106-224 (7 U.S.C. 7624 note).
       Sec. 757. Notwithstanding 40 U.S.C. 524, 571, and 572, the 
     Secretary of Agriculture may sell the US Water Conservation 
     Laboratory, Phoenix, Arizona, and the Western Cotton Research 
     Center, Phoenix, Arizona, and credit the net proceeds of such 
     sales as offsetting collections to its Agricultural Research 
     Service Buildings and Facilities account. Such funds shall be 
     available until September 30, 2007 to be used to replace 
     these facilities and to improve other USDA-owned facilities.
       Sec. 758. None of the funds provided in this Act may be 
     used for salaries and expenses to draft or implement any 
     regulation or rule insofar as it would require 
     recertification of rural status for each electric and 
     telecommunications borrower for the Rural Electrification and 
     Telecommunication Loans program.
       Sec. 759. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act shall be used for the implementation of 
     Country of Origin Labeling for meat or meat products.
       Sec. 760. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     and until the receipt of the decennial Census in the year 
     2010, the Secretary of Agriculture shall consider--
       (1) the City of Bridgeton, New Jersey, the City of Kinston, 
     North Carolina, and the City of Portsmouth, Ohio as rural 
     areas for the purposes of Rural Housing Service Community 
     Facilities Program loans and grants;
       (2) the Township of Bloomington, Illinois (including 
     individuals and entities with projects within the Township) 
     eligible for Rural Housing Service Community Facilities 
     Programs loans and grants;
       (3) the City of Hidalgo, Texas as a rural area for the 
     purposes of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service Rural 
     Business Enterprise Grant Program;
       (4) the City of Elgin, Oklahoma (including individuals and 
     entities with projects within the city) eligible for Rural 
     Utilities Service water and waste water loans and grants;
       (5) the City of Lone Grove, Oklahoma (including individuals 
     and entities with projects within the city) eligible for 
     Rural Housing Service Community Facilities Program loans and 
     grants; and

[[Page H4237]]

       (6) the Municipalities of Vega Baja, Manati, Guayama, 
     Fajardo, Humacao, and Naguabo (including individuals and 
     entities with projects within the Municipalities) eligible 
     for Rural Community Advancement Program loans and grants and 
     intermediate relending programs.
       Sec. 761. The Secretary of Agriculture shall use 
     $10,000,000 of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation, 
     to remain available until expended, to compensate commercial 
     citrus and lime growers in the State of Florida for tree 
     replacement and for lost production with respect to trees 
     removed to control citrus canker, and with respect to 
     certified citrus nursery stocks within the citrus canker 
     quarantine areas, as determined by the Secretary. For a 
     grower to receive assistance for a tree under this section, 
     the tree must have been removed after September 30, 2001.
       Sec. 762. The counties of Burlington and Camden, New Jersey 
     (including individuals and entities with projects within 
     these counties) shall be eligible for loans and grants under 
     the Rural Community Advancement Program for fiscal year 2006 
     to the same extent they were eligible for such assistance 
     during the fiscal year 2005 under section 106 of Chapter 1 of 
     Division B of Public Law 108-324 (188 Stat. 1236).
       Sec. 763. Of the unobligated balances available in the 
     Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, 
     and Children reserve account, $32,000,000 is hereby 
     rescinded.
       Sec. 764. None of the funds provided by this Act shall be 
     used to pay salaries and expenses and other costs associated 
     with implementing or administering section 508(e)(3) of the 
     Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) for the 
     2006 reinsurance year.
       Sec. 765. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act for the Food and Drug Administration 
     may be used under section 801 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act to prevent an individual not in the business of 
     importing a prescription drug within the meaning of section 
     801(g) of such Act, wholesalers, or pharmacists from 
     importing a prescription drug which complies with sections 
     501, 502, and 505.
       Sec. 766. Unless otherwise authorized by existing law, none 
     of the funds provided in this Act, may be used by an 
     executive branch agency to produce any prepackaged news story 
     intended for broadcast or distribution in the United States 
     unless the story includes a clear notification within the 
     text or audio of the prepackaged news story that the 
     prepackaged news story was prepared or funded by that 
     executive branch agency.
       Sec. 767. In addition to other amounts appropriated or 
     otherwise made available by this Act, there is hereby 
     appropriated to the Secretary of Agriculture $7,000,000, of 
     which not to exceed 5 percent may be available for 
     administrative expenses, to remain available until expended, 
     to make specialty crop block grants under section 101 of the 
     Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-
     465; 7 U.S.C. 1621 note).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there any points of order to that portion of 
the bill?


                            Points of Order

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 
749 that begins on page 77, line 1, and ends on page 77, line 16, in 
that it violates House rule XXI, clause 2, by changing existing law and 
inserting legislative language in an appropriation bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does anybody wish to be heard on the point of 
order? If not, the Chair will rule.
  The Chair finds that this provision explicitly supersedes existing 
law. The provision, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of 
clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained, and the 
provision is stricken from the bill.
  Are there any other points of order to this bill?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 
760 that begins on page 81, line 1 through 7 and beginning with ``and'' 
on page 81, line 11 through ``programs'' on line 17 in that it violates 
House rule XXI, clause 2, by changing existing law and inserting 
legislative language in an appropriation bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order? If not, the Chair will rule.
  The Chair finds that this provision includes language conferring 
authority. The provision, therefore, constitutes legislation in 
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained, and 
the provision is stricken from the bill.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Bonilla

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Bonilla:
       On page 73, line 16, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $40,000,000)'';
       On page 75, line 10, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(decreased by $13,000,000)'';
       On page 75, line 15, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(decreased by $17,000,000)''; and,
       On page 75, line 20, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(decreased by $10,000,000)''.

  Mr. BONILLA (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment as part of 
the agreement that I referred to earlier with the chairman of the 
Committee on Agriculture.
  I am offering the amendment under the agreement that we would add $40 
million back to the Environmental Quality Incentives program account. 
That is what the amendment does, and it is paid for by increasing the 
limitations on the Conservation Security program, the Wildlife Habitat 
Incentives program, and the Farm and Ranchlands Protection program.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. DeLauro

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. DeLauro:
       In section 757, strike ``and the Western Cotton Research 
     Center, Phoenix, Arizona, and credit the net proceeds of such 
     sales'' and insert ``and credit the net proceeds of such 
     sale''.

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in suppor of Mrs. DeLauro's 
amendment to strike part of Section 757 of Title VII of the Agriculture 
Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2006.
  In 1966, the Arizona Cotton Growers Association and the Arizona 
Cotton Planting Seed Distributors deeded a piece of property located at 
4135 East Broadway Road in Phoenix To USDA for $1.00 to help with the 
construction of the Western Cotton Research Center. With the 
construction of a new facility for the research center at the 
University of Arizona'a Maricopa Agricultural Center, the research and 
its staff will move within the next two years, leaving this property 
behind.
  I think it is appropriate that this property, which abuts the 
headquarters of the Arizona Cotton Growers Association, revert back to 
that group, since they deeded this property to USDA originally for only 
$1.00.
  I fully support removing the language allowing the Secretary of 
Agriculture to sell the Wester Cotton Research Center, Phoenix, Arizona 
and crediting the net proceeds of that sale as offsetting collections 
to the ARS Buildings and Facilities account.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment that the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor) has worked very hard on for some 
time and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) is offering on 
his behalf, and we are happy to accept the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for accepting the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment Offered by Mr. Moran of Kansas

  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Moran of Kansas:
       Add at the end (before the short title), the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 7__. Of the amount made available under the heading 
     ``ANIMAL and PLANT HEATH INSPECTION SERVICE--Salaries and 
     Expenses'', $15,000,000 shall be used by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture to carry out sections 454 and 455 of the Plant 
     Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7783, 7784).
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved. The gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Moran) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, today I offer an amendment to 
appropriate funds for the eradication of noxious weeds.

[[Page H4238]]

  I first would like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), 
the chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, 
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, as well as the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), for their leadership in 
what I know is a very difficult task of allocating funds within the 
budgetary restraints that we find ourselves. I would also like to thank 
their staff for their hard work and their efforts to accommodate my 
amendment.
  This amendment would allocate within the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service $15 million to fund the Noxious Weed Control and 
Eradication Act of 2004. This legislation, the act, was authorized for 
the past 2 years, but no funding has yet been appropriated to carry out 
the purpose of the program.
  The Noxious Weed Control and Eradication Act passed the House in 
October of 2004 and allows the Secretary of the Department of 
Agriculture to establish a grant program to control and eradicate 
noxious weeds.
  This legislation gives local weed management entities the ability to 
control local weed problems and provides the funding necessary for them 
to meet a very serious need in many places across the country.
  This legislation has broad bipartisan support and will benefit the 
entire Nation.
  Noxious weeds are a significant environmental and economic concern. I 
know from my own experiences in Kansas, we have a difficult time 
controlling the very difficult and noxious weeds. Sericea lespedeza is 
a weed that has invaded many acres of the foothills region of Kansas, 
which contain some of the few remaining acres of native tall grass 
prairie.
  Sericea lespedeza is just one example of many invasive species that 
create economic hardship across the country; and by finally providing 
these funds, we can help in the battle to eradicate this and prevent a 
major outbreak of noxious weeds.
  This is a matter in which timing is critical; and we need to give our 
communities, our local entities, and our farmers, landowners, the tools 
they need to manage our natural landscapes.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues for the offering of this 
amendment.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, is it the gentleman's intention to withdraw his 
amendment?
  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONILLA. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, based upon previous conversations 
with the gentleman from Texas and the staff of the agriculture 
subcommittee, I am willing to withdraw my amendment under the 
understanding that we have reached in regard to cooperation on this 
issue in the future.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, absolutely. Let me point out that the 
gentleman from Kansas is not only working hard on this particular 
issue, but he is a key player on agricultural issues that we deal with 
on a daily basis here in Washington. I am not only on this issue, but 
whatever issue the gentleman brings forward, we are ready and willing 
to discuss, work with and solve problems with him. He comes to the 
table every day very serious about these issues and truly in his heart 
wants to solve issues that face agriculture across the country.
  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw my amendment and look forward to working with the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) in regard to this issue being considered in 
the future.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Forbes). Is there objection to the request 
of the gentleman from Kansas?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Rehberg

  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Rehberg:
       Strike section 759 (page 80, lines 7 through 10), relating 
     to the delay in country of origin labeling for meat and meat 
     products.

  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, here we are addressing an issue we have 
addressed many times over the last several years. I find myself in a 
precarious position because I do support the agriculture appropriations 
bill, and I think the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) deserves a pat 
on the back for the fine work he has accomplished over the last several 
months in putting this piece of legislation together.
  The issue I am talking about today is country-of-origin labeling. The 
thing we cannot kid ourselves about is that the actions that were taken 
within the Committee on Appropriations will effectively delay country-
of-origin labeling's implementation, but, unfortunately, it probably 
kills it because there is that attempt that is occurring.
  This was an issue supported by the House of Representatives and 
passed, supported by the Senate and passed, and ultimately signed by 
the President of the United States. What I find ironic is the opponents 
say this would be costly, difficult to implement, and it is not a 
safety issue. I brought along a number of articles today that kind of 
take the wind out of the sails of that argument.
  I find interesting that, in the Auburn Journal in northern 
California, one of the areas that has been allowed to be implemented is 
seafood. Fruits and vegetables are shortly behind. The only ones that 
are not being able to be implemented are cattle. So I draw Members' 
attention to an article in the Auburn Journal dated May 25, 2005.
  What this article says is, ``Seafood savvy now know where their meal 
grew up.'' It states, ``In the seafood section at Raley's supermarket, 
small blue containers line the shelves, filled with red and tan fish. 
Labels on the clear wrappers give traditional information about the 
seafood type and nutritional facts. In the bottom right-hand corner, 
however, a new label is attached: a small white rectangle with bold 
black print that reads `Product of Ecuador,' `Product of China,' or 
`Product of U.S.A.'
  ``Raley's has been labeling its seafood products since January, said 
Keith Allen, Auburn Raley's meat department manager. While the burden 
of labeling falls on grocers, it has not been difficult for the meat 
department staff to adjust to the change. `It is just a matter of 
putting the sticker on the package,' he said Monday.
  ``By naming the country of origin, the labels give savvy customers 
the opportunity to choose fish from countries with high sanitation 
standards and better growing conditions. Several customers have already 
commented on the change, Allen said.
  ``Annette Eastman, shopping at Raley's Tuesday morning, said she was 
glad to see the new labels. She would prefer not to buy seafood from 
countries such as Mexico because she worries that the quality of the 
water where the fish that are raised is poor.
  `` `I would much rather buy something from the U.S.A.,' she said, 
pointing to the fish fillet labeled `Product of the U.S.A.' Another 
shopper, Tammieh Vernon, also said the labels would influence her 
seafood purchases.''
  Interesting as well, I pulled this article off the Internet. The 
title: Country-of-origin labeling good news for Texas shrimp 
enthusiasts. May 15, 2005.
  ``Texans who are picky about where their shrimp comes from can now 
rest assured that they are getting exactly what they want. As of April 
4, labeling of fish and shellfish for country of origin and method of 
production became mandatory. The announcement by the USDA requires 
retailers to notify their customers of the country of origin of the 
seafood they buy.
  `` `It is a win/win situation for Texas,' said Agriculture 
Commissioner Susan Combs. `Texans love to buy Texas products, and this 
way they will know they are getting the quality they love. In turn, 
sales will increase, providing a boost to Texas shrimp producers and 
the State's economy.'
  ``With these new rules and regulations, more Texas consumers will 
have the opportunity to buy Lone Star State shrimp. This new regulation 
enables consumers to quickly differentiate between domestic and 
imported products, said D'Anne Stites, Texas Department of 
Agriculture's coordinator.
  ``Country-of-origin labeling or COOL regulations will make marketing 
easier as customers can see firsthand what

[[Page H4239]]

they are getting. Stites said, `Consumers will be able to ask for Texas 
shrimp with the knowledge of what is available in front of them.' ''
  So it is a marketing issue, very clearly. But I think the people of 
America want to know where their livestock does in fact come from.
  It was interesting to see that Japan shut our markets down on 
Christmas Eve of 2003 and still have not opened them. Unfortunately, 23 
percent of our exports go to Japan. And why did they not open their 
markets and why did they close them in the first place? Because we 
could not prove that our livestock that we are exporting to Japan did 
not come from Canada.
  So it is not a trade issue. In some ways, it is a safety issue; and 
that is unfortunate.
  I might also point out on May 25 of this year the USDA closed its 
border to cattle from Durango, Mexico. Agriculture Secretary Mike 
Johanns on Tuesday announced that USDA Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service has closed the U.S. border to cattle from Mexico's 
state of Durango due to inadequate health inspection programs there.
  The ACTING Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional 
minutes.
  The ACTING Chairman. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Montana?
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I ask 
unanimous consent from this point on debate on this amendment be 
limited to 30 minutes with 15 minutes allotted to the gentleman from 
Montana (Mr. Rehberg) and 15 minutes allotted to myself who will rise 
to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I have no 
problem with the time limit, but I would not want a time limit that 
boxed the minority out of control of any time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, my unanimous consent request is to allow 
15 minutes for the proponent of the amendment and 15 minutes in 
opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, could the gentleman split the time in 
opposition to the amendment in two?
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for the gentleman 
from Montana (Mr. Rehberg) to control 15 minutes and to be split 
between myself and the minority 7\1/2\ minutes each in opposition to 
the amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, point of clarification, if the intent is 
to split the proponents of the amendment, so I am a proponent, 15 
minutes in favor of my amendment and 7\1/2\ minutes each to those that 
are opposed to the amendment, is that what the unanimous consent 
requests?
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's understanding is correct. 
In reality, there will probably be more speakers in favor of the 
Rehberg amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the request of the gentleman from Texas 
include any amendments to the amendment of the gentleman from Montana 
(Mr. Rehberg)?
  Mr. BONILLA. No.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg) will 
control 15 minutes, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) will control 
7\1/2\ minutes, and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) will 
control 7\1/2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg).
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment. This is an issue that many of us have been working on for 
many years. The country-of-origin labeling provisions that were part of 
the last farm bill would present a nightmare to many producers in this 
country. Good, salt-of-the-earth people in agriculture know that this 
would impose up to $1 billion in additional costs to their already 
overworked people and to their budgets, which are already being taxed.
  This is also an issue for anybody who believes that grocery stores 
and retailers are part of Americana in this country, and they would 
rise in strong opposition to this amendment because there is a 
liability in the country-of-origin labeling that would in essence make 
your friendly corner grocery store liable for trial lawyers to come in 
and say you did not put the fact that this calf may have been born in 
one country, processed in another country, and now on the meat counter 
in your local grocery store. Now the lawyers can come along and say, we 
are taking you to court, causing the price of beef to go up for 
American families. That is not something that would reflect favorably 
for anyone in this country, whether you are a producer, a retailer or a 
consumer.
  This is a marketing issue. I realize there is an intent by this 
country-of-origin labeling provision to mandate that these labels be 
put on products. Nothing could be more anti free enterprise than to 
mandate labeling on a product. If consumers want this, they will ask 
their retailer to put it on the product so they can favor that product 
over another.
  I am not sure what the origin of the country-of-origin labeling 
provision was in the last farm bill, but there is no doubt it would 
create additional costs that consumers would have to bear.
  I would also want to compliment the chairman of the authorizing 
committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), for introducing 
a bill to make this country-of-origin labeling provision voluntary. 
There are dozens of cosponsors on the bill. It is a bipartisan effort. 
Many of us have been working on that for a long time, and we hope that 
this provision that I have put in this bill remains by voting no on the 
Rehberg amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to rise in support of the 
gentleman's amendment. There is no earthly reason why consumers should 
not know where their food is coming from, and I would hope the House 
would pass the amendment.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
South Dakota (Ms. Herseth).
  Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in complete support of this 
amendment, and I want to commend the strong and tenacious leadership of 
the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg) for his offering of the 
amendment today. I also rise with no small measure of frustration and 
exasperation that this amendment is even necessary today.
  The 2002 farm bill made a promise to farmers and ranchers across this 
country. It promised them that the Secretary of Agriculture would 
implement a program to inform consumers where their meat and vegetables 
come from. Producers in South Dakota see tremendous potential in this 
program and urged its inclusion in the farm bill. In fact, had this 
provision not been in the bill, I think that many of them would not 
have supported its passage. This promise was supposed to be fulfilled 
by September 30 of last year.

                              {time}  1415

  The program should already be up and running. Instead, the large meat 
packers have rallied to kill this program because they do not want 
American consumers to discover how much of the meat in the grocery case 
is actually imported. And these packing interests have found strong and 
willing allies here in this body. Two years ago in an appropriations 
bill, Congress voted to delay the implementation of this program until 
September 30 of next year.
  Now we see that this 2-year delay was not enough for them. Their 
allies in this Chamber are at it again today, seeking to delay 
implementation of this important program for yet another year. This is 
unconscionable and it is just the tip of the iceberg. Leadership in 
this body is breaking faith with rural America on a host of important 
issues. The administration is leading the fight to reopen our border to 
Canadian beef despite ongoing concerns about the safety of their beef 
supply and over the strong objections of many U.S. ranchers and 
consumer groups.

[[Page H4240]]

  Rural America is also under attack in the budget process. The 2007 
budget, which recently passed this body with only Republican votes, 
will cut $3 billion from farm safety net programs in the coming years. 
The President's budget was even worse, seeking a cut of almost $6 
billion in farm bill programs. Because of this budget, the farm income 
safety net, conservation programs and food stamps are now facing huge 
cuts in the coming years. I see mandatory country-of-origin legislation 
as a win-win situation and no more delays are justified. It is a win 
for consumers who get the security of knowing where their meat comes 
from, and it is a win for our producers who can build a stronger 
marketplace for their meat based on the quality of the product.
  Let us not forget that American consumers have shown overwhelming 
support for COOL. A nationwide poll taken last year found that 82 
percent of consumers think food should be labeled with country-of-
origin information; 85 percent said they would be more inclined to 
purchase U.S. products; and 81 percent said they would be willing to 
pay a few cents extra for food that is grown here at home. American 
consumers want the ability to be as informed about their food purchase 
decisions as they are about virtually all of the other consumers goods 
they purchase. Country-of-origin labeling gives them this tool and they 
support it.
  Let us restore our commitment to rural America. I urge my colleagues 
to support this amendment. A 2-year delay is long enough. Let us allow 
the Agriculture Secretary to fulfill the promise of the 2002 farm bill 
by giving producers the marketing tools that they need and consumers 
the information that they are seeking on the origin of the food they 
buy.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
  Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I agree with the statements made by my colleague from Montana, and I 
thank him for the leadership he has shown on this issue. Our amendment 
is very simple. It would allow country-of-origin labeling, better known 
as COOL, which was approved by a majority of this House in the last 
farm bill, to go forward this next year. We have got to stop yet 
another backdoor attempt to halt country-of-origin food labeling rules. 
Consumers deserve to know where their meat is produced and that it is 
safe, and farmers and ranchers deserve the fair deal provided by open 
and honest labeling.
  The gentleman from Montana is up here today for the same reason I am. 
Like me, he represents an agricultural district and country-of-origin 
labeling is something that our farmers want. That is why country-of-
origin labeling enjoys such broad support in the agriculture community. 
Our amendment is supported by the National Farmers Union and over 120 
other organizations.
  Over the last few days, I have received letters of encouragement from 
many Oregon farmers thanking me for helping to bring this amendment 
forward. Our farms grow the best produce and raise the best livestock 
in the world, and American consumers know this. Studies have shown that 
Americans want to buy American commodities and are even willing to pay 
a premium to do so. Our Nation's farmers and ranchers produce the best 
and safest commodities in the world and consumers deserve the chance to 
know where their food is born, raised, and processed.
  Country-of-origin labeling provides U.S. agriculture producers the 
opportunity to promote their excellent products. The labeling law does 
not violate international trade agreements, would not drastically 
increase producer and consumer costs, does not require third-party 
documentation for trace-back or disadvantage any commodity. Thirty-five 
other countries require country-of-origin labeling, and COOL has 
already gone into effect for fish and shellfish. Labeling products is 
simply a promotional tool for U.S. producers and an information source 
for consumers.
  For these reasons, we had country-of-origin labeling provisions added 
to the last farm bill. Country-of-origin labeling has been delayed for 
several years and has been studied to death. This provision in the 
agriculture appropriations bill continues that trend.
  Country-of-origin labeling is good for American farmers and good for 
American consumers. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to stand up for their constituents and vote for the Rehberg/
Hooley amendment.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for 
yielding me this time. I certainly think that of all the discussions we 
have had on this floor, everyone on both sides of the aisle has nothing 
but the best intentions, and I respect that. I think that as we move 
forward in the protection of our food supply, it is important for us 
not to burden an industry with requirements and costs that go above and 
beyond what is necessary for us to protect the public health and 
safety. I think that this bill goes too far when it absolutely requires 
mandatory labeling of the products.
  I think that we can do this on a voluntary basis, give our producers 
the right to put the label that they wish as far as the origin of their 
product on their product, and put it on the grocery store shelf and see 
what happens. We have no indication that just labeling the country of 
origin makes a significant difference in the marketing of these 
products, and I think it is an unnecessary extra layer of regulation 
that we are about to put on an industry that many times has a very 
difficult time staying in business anyway.
  I rise in opposition to this amendment and recognize that everyone on 
both sides of the issue has nothing but the best of intentions and 
certainly wishes the industry well and especially our grass-roots 
producers. We want to do what is necessary to help them all we can. But 
I still would encourage a ``no'' vote on this amendment and look 
forward to seeing this issue at some date, maybe long after I am gone 
from this place, resolved, because it has been around a long time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the distinguished chairman of the Committee 
on Agriculture.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time, 
and I join him in rising in strong opposition to this amendment. This 
amendment is foolhardy just like the underlying provision that was 
placed in the farm bill at the last minute. We debated this thoroughly 
in the House Agriculture Committee prior to the writing of that farm 
bill and the committee members, 51 members, all from agricultural 
districts, overwhelmingly rejected this amendment as not in the best 
interest of America's farmers and ranchers. The Senate held no 
hearings, insisted on this provision, and it was put into law.
  What we found after it was put into law was that it does harm. It 
does exactly the opposite of what farmers and ranchers intended. It 
increases the cost an estimated $10 per head for cattle, $1.50 for 
hogs, a similar amount for sheep; and it has the effect, the opposite 
of what was intended. It will make our products less competitive with 
foreign meat products, not more competitive. That is wrongheaded.
  Secondly, it imposes unbelievably stringent liability on the 
retailers, and every one of them is writing their own separate set of 
regulations, so that if this law is allowed to take effect, and I 
commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) for postponing that 
because we need to have a voluntary system, if it goes into effect, we 
are going to have a separate set of regulations for each retailer that 
farmers and ranchers will have to comply with in order to get their 
products sold. Once again they will say no liability risk if we buy the 
foreign product, no problem complying with additional regulations, they 
are going to buy more foreign product, not less.
  Finally, last year I offered in the Committee on Agriculture 
legislation to do this the right way, to make it voluntary. When we did 
so, again the committee members overwhelmingly voted not to do this 
mandatory system, but to make it voluntary. That is what we should 
continue to work toward today. The way to do that is to keep the 
provision of the gentleman from Texas in this bill and delay the 
implementation of this very bad legislation.

[[Page H4241]]

  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of this amendment 
to strike the language which would once again delay full implementation 
and rightful implementation of country-of-origin labeling for meat and 
meat products. Congress authorized mandatory COOL in the 2002 farm 
bill, and delaying it further is an injustice to American farmers, 
ranchers, and consumers.
  According to the Food and Drug Administration, which is the Federal 
agency charged with ensuring food safety, less than 1 percent of all 
food products imported into the United States are inspected by customs. 
If a meat product enters the country shelf-ready, such as ground beef, 
it is not required at all to be inspected by the USDA. A USDA approval 
stamp only appears on meat products which have been transformed into a 
graded cut. What this means is that less than 1 percent of the beef 
that is imported from foreign countries is inspected by the USDA. The 
USDA is in place to protect us. As a housewife and a mother, I would 
gladly pay a few extra cents on every pound of hamburger or on every 
pound of beef that I buy if I knew that that beef was produced in the 
United States, because I would have a sense of safety that my family 
was eating meat that was inspected, because all American beef is 
inspected.
  Essentially, a shipment such as ground beef could be imported into 
America from a foreign country and wind up on a family's dinner table 
having never been inspected by American authorities. Without the 
implementation of mandatory COOL, we will continue under a voluntary 
program, and the status quo clearly does not effectively protect the 
safety of American consumers.
  America's agriculture industry produces some of the safest, highest 
quality products in the world. If given a chance, Americans will choose 
American products time and time again.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz).
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Bonilla provision 
to delay implementing mandatory country of origin labeling, which is 
known as COOL, for meat and meat products for 1 year. This distinction 
is important. This delay is for meat and associated products alone. In 
the 2002 farm bill, we added the COOL requirement for fruits and 
vegetables. The conference, however, expanded the mandate to meat, 
fish, perishable agricultural commodities, and peanuts. As most things 
not vetted by committees, these regulations brought a number of 
problems and unintended consequences. Several government and private 
studies have identified numerous costs added, especially for consumers.
  American families should not pay the price for marketing beef without 
it being any safer than it is now. The House has previously voted to 
delay mandatory COOL in order to review the law and develop a voluntary 
option. The Bonilla provision to delay COOL labeling for meat is the 
right thing to do. I ask the House to join me in keeping this provision 
and oppose the motion to strike.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

                              {time}  1430

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I hear a lot of talk about voluntary, but we have no mandatory right 
to recall tainted products. We have voluntary labeling of drugs, which 
can hurt people. We have voluntary marketing studies after a drug has 
been brought to market. When are we going to do something that makes 
sure that we are protecting people's interests?
  Country-of-origin labeling is about providing people the information 
they need to make an informed choice to protect the safety of their 
families. Thirty-five other countries that we trade with, including 
Canada, Mexico, members of the European Union, have country-of-origin 
labeling. Seven out of ten people say they are willing to pay more to 
know where their food is coming from.
  Food imports are increasing. The number of inspections of imported 
meat is actually decreasing. Consumers have a right to know, given the 
fact that we continue to have major recalls of meat products. This year 
we have had over 30 recalls.
  This effort is about being able to trace back contaminated product in 
the event of a recall. Knowing the source of an outbreak is a critical 
part of the process so that we can quickly take action to prevent 
people from getting sick. It is critically important considering the 76 
million sicknesses, 5,000 deaths that occur every year from food-borne 
illness.
  Some say that if we halt the implementation of the country-of-origin 
labeling for meat, it will allow more time to consider the impact on 
the food industry. Congress has given the USDA more than 2 years to 
design a program that is fair to all parties including industry and 
consumers. Country-of-origin labeling will not violate trade 
agreements, lead to retaliation. It will not bankrupt the food 
industry. It simply says to consumers they will know where their food 
comes from. We owe the American people that.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Rehberg-Hooley amendment.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me 
this time.
  I would address it this way, that I am cool towards mandatory COOL, 
not towards Montana or my colleague from up there. We have a situation 
here where we have our cart ahead of our horse. We cannot identify our 
meat until we can identify where it comes from.
  We have initiated a trace-back system for an animal ID in this 
Congress. That needs to be done first. I introduced that amendment in 
the Committee on Agriculture last year. Identify where the livestock 
comes from first, then have the discussion about whether it is 
mandatory or whether it is going to be an option for our producers. And 
whether it is a benefit to us from an economic standpoint, a retail 
standpoint, that really needs to be looked at from the marketing 
perspective and the more voluntary perspective. But I say delay that 
until we know where these animals come from. We are going to get that 
done in this Congress in the next couple of years, and then we can take 
a look at it from the perspective of what is the most legitimate 
approach. But right now we have our cart in front of our horse.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Conaway), a distinguished Member from the great City of 
Midland.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to my good colleagues 
from Montana and others who have spoken in favor of this, I rise in 
opposition to it.
  It is not about food safety. If it were about food safety, then the 
52 percent of meat that Americans consume would be involved in this 
labeling process, and that is not the case. Any meat consumed in retail 
food establishments is not affected by this labeling. So when one goes 
into their local restaurant and orders a steak, it will not come out 
labeled as to where that steak comes from. So if it was really about 
food safety, my colleagues would be speaking about that.
  It is really a marketing program, a heavy-handed approach by this 
Federal Government to demand a marketing program that may or may not 
work. The voluntary COOL program that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goodlatte) is proposing, of which I am a cosponsor, will give the 
industry an opportunity to design a system that works for them. We all 
have to look at the Certified Angus Beef programs and Idaho potatoes to 
understand that the free market can, in fact, devise labeling 
opportunities or labeling programs that do benefit consumers and allow 
consumers to make that choice. So I stand against this amendment, with 
all due respect.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As my colleagues noticed, this is about marketing essentially, and it 
is

[[Page H4242]]

about the fact that an entire industry was created in places like Texas 
to take advantage of cheap Mexican calves, bringing them across the 
border, fattening them up, and selling them in our food system without 
any knowledge of where they come from. Born, raised, and processed 
means we are proud of USA agriculture, USA livestock.
  There is an unintended consequence, Mr. Chairman. The unintended 
consequence is the gentleman from Texas's (Mr. Ortiz) very own State 
loves the country-of-origin labeling that was mandated by that same 
farm bill on fish. I will read one more time that quote: ``It's a win-
win situation for Texas,'' said Agriculture Commissioner Susan Combs. 
``Texans love to buy Texas products, and this way they'll know they're 
getting the quality they love. In turn, sales will increase, providing 
a boost to Texas shrimp producers and the State's economy.''
  They love it when it works to their advantage. They are opposed to it 
when they think it might change something.
  This is a good piece of legislation. It may not, it may not be a 
health issue to the gentleman from Texas, but it obviously is a health 
issue to some of our trading partners.
  On December 23, when the cow was found in the State of Washington 
that had Mad Cow disease, it took exactly 24 hours for 60 of our 
trading partners to shut off our exports, 60 of them. One-third have 
now reopened those markets. Our largest export market has not, and that 
is Japan. So it is a health issue with them.
  The problem that exists right now, and it was very quietly done, but 
on May 21, as I mentioned before, the state of Durango in Mexico can no 
longer send live cattle to the United States along the Texas border 
because they were mixing cattle between two regions within their state, 
one that has the ability to be exported and the other that does not. 
These are the trading partners that are sending us their livestock that 
we do not have the ability to label where it came from.
  Unfortunately, bovine TB is contagious, infectious, and a 
communicable disease. It affects cattle, bison, deer, elk, goats, and 
other species, including humans, and it could be fatal.
  We want to know where our livestock came from. Is it so simple that 
we cannot understand that we currently exempt some of the issues or 
some of the products like beads and ball bearings and bolts and nuts 
and buttons, feathers, hair nets? There are not many exceptions to the 
labeling laws in this country: rags, ribbons, screws, sponges, wicking, 
candle, and livestock. Livestock because it is about the pocketbook.
  I am here to stand before the Members today and ask them to support 
the amendment. Give us the opportunity to show that labeling livestock 
will be met with the same kind of enthusiasm by the consumer and those 
of us who are truly cattle producers. I am a producer. I still have to 
deal with this. Perhaps I will have to pay for it. But I know the 
American consumer will want the opportunity to purchase my livestock 
because I know where it came from. It is a closed herd. It was born, it 
was raised, and it is processed in America.
  That is what makes America great, is the opportunity to label. 
Voluntary does not work. If voluntary worked, we would be doing it now. 
But it does not. Why? Because the meat processors and the supermarkets 
will not allow us the opportunity to have it labeled. They say they 
can. They say they might. But we cannot make them, and when we cannot 
make them, we have no influence nor ability to do it.
  Fruits and nuts will soon have country-of-origin labeling as well. It 
has been allowed to move forward, and what they did is they segregated 
our support for country-of-origin labeling. They let the fish go. The 
Texas producers love it. They let fruits and nuts go. California and 
the rest of the producers will like it. But they will not let livestock 
go for purely economic reasons.
  It is time we send a message to those that are standing in the way 
and allow us the opportunity to tell the American consumer born, 
raised, and processed in America means something. Buy American.
  (Mr. HAYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks at this point in the Record.)
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the amendment 
offered by Mr. Rehberg and Ms. Hooley, I applaud Chairman Bonilla for 
including a provision in the agriculture appropriations bill that would 
limit USDA's funding for implementing the mandatory country-of-origin 
labeling law for meat and meat products. The country-of-origin labeling 
laws as currently written clearly requires more Congressional attention 
before going into effect by September 30, 2006.
  As a member of the Agriculture Committee and as Chairman of the 
Livestock and Horticulture Subcommittee, I have held hearings to 
discuss how mandatory country-of-origin labeling will affect the entire 
livestock industry. I have personally heard the numerous concerns of 
producers, processors, suppliers, and retailers in trying to implement 
this onerous program. These hearings raised many questions, and the 
livestock witnesses specifically pointed out the tremendous potential 
for increased costs and unintended consequences. All of the witnesses, 
regardless of being for or against country-of-origin labeling, 
unanimously stated that this is not a food safety issue but a marketing 
issue. Saying labeling is needed because of recent cases of BSE, for 
example, is bogus--especially since this particular disease does not 
occur in the muscle cuts we consume!

  I have also heard concerns from many of my constituents in North 
Carolina about this issue. I can tell you that not one of them has said 
this law will bring them additional revenue or market advantages. They 
all express their deep concern that this law will instead cause 
significant burdens and headaches in order to be in compliance with the 
law.
  Having participated in the hearings and listening to the worries of 
my constituents, I firmly believe a voluntary approach is a better 
solution. I am pleased to cosponsor the Meat Promotion Act introduced 
by Agriculture Committee Chairman Goodlatte which requires the 
Secretary of Agriculture to establish a voluntary program for labeling 
meat and meat products. I believe this legislation better fits the true 
intent of country-of-origin labeling--to maximize producer benefits and 
avoid the costs and regulatory intrusions that a government-mandated 
program would entail.

  Unfortunately, a ``Fire, Ready, Aim'' approach led to the creation of 
the current mandatory country-of-origin labeling law. This issue 
clearly needs further attention and delaying the implementation of the 
law for meat and meat products is a step in the right direction. I 
would like to reiterate that the provision included in the agriculture 
appropriations bill only affects meat and meat products.
  I urge my colleagues to support the appropriations bill and reject 
the Rehberg-Hooley amendment.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg) 
will be postponed.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, last night I went before the Committee on Rules to seek 
the ability to offer an amendment to the bill today that would have 
given the Food and Drug Administration, the FDA, two critically 
important new authorities to improve the agency's drug safety 
operations. It would have given FDA the authority to require drug 
companies to conduct post-marketing studies of FDA-approved drugs and 
the authority to mandate changes to the labels of FDA-approved drugs. 
But the Committee on Rules would not allow the amendment.
  Almost every week we hear about another unsafe drug and the 
significant harm that those drugs are doing to millions of people. Yet 
Congress has done nothing. The most recent case is the cholesterol-
lowering drug Crestor, which a recent study found is significantly more 
likely than other drugs in its class to cause muscle deterioration that 
can lead to kidney disease and kidney failure.
  Flip through the headlines of the last few months, and we will see 
many more examples. Of the two most significant drug failures of the 
last year, they are antidepressants and Vioxx. For years, evidence was 
building that antidepressants seem to cause an increased rate of 
suicide among users,

[[Page H4243]]

particularly young people. The FDA, however, failed to heed this 
evidence and delayed taking any action for years because the agency 
said it did not have enough data to do anything about these reports of 
suicide.
  The reason for this was FDA could not order the drug companies to 
conduct further clinical trials after a drug is approved. When the 
agency finally did have enough data back in 2003, it first sought to 
hide it but eventually told antidepressant makers that there needed to 
be a warning on suicide. However, it took more than 9 months before 
that warning was placed on any drug label because the FDA had to 
negotiate with the drug companies over the label's wording. Patients 
went 9 extra months without knowing all the risks.
  Vioxx was finally removed from the market last September because it 
increased the risk of heart attacks and strokes. Notably, it was the 
drug manufacturer, Merck, that removed the drug, not the FDA. An 
estimated 90,000 to 140,000 Americans suffered heart attacks and 
strokes as a result of Vioxx. Of these, 30 to 40 percent, or as many as 
60,000 people, probably died.
  Dr. David Graham, a heroic doctor at the FDA, put these numbers into 
perspective when he testified before the Senate Finance Committee last 
November. He compared the number of heart attacks and strokes caused by 
Vioxx to plane crashes. Dr. Graham stated the Vioxx numbers are the 
equivalent of two to four airplane crashes every week, week in and week 
out, week after week, for the past 5 years. If it really were planes 
that were crashing, then the Congress would be doing something about 
it. Yet we have done nothing to empower the FDA to prevent another 
Vioxx.
  FDA knew about the dangers of Vioxx more than 5 years ago, and in 
2002 the agency decided Vioxx's label needed to have a warning about 
the increased risk of heart disease. Yet it took nearly 14 months 
before that warning was added to Vioxx's label because the FDA again 
had to negotiate the wording with the drug company. FDA could not 
simply tell Merck that its label must say Vioxx causes increased risk 
of heart attacks and strokes. Nor could FDA order Merck to conduct a 
new clinical trial about Vioxx's safety when the FDA learned of other 
studies indicating safety problems.

                              {time}  1445

  My amendment would change that. These commonsense changes are nearly 
universally accepted by patient safety organizations, endorsed by 
nearly every major medical journal, and even by a few drug companies. 
FDA's own director of the Office of New Drugs has said she believes it 
would be extremely helpful for the agency to have these powers and 
authorities. They are also endorsed on a bipartisan basis, including by 
Senators Charles Grassley and Thad Cochran, who have cosponsored a bill 
that would do almost exactly what I am proposing today.
  These changes cannot wait to happen. They cannot wait any longer. 
Delay is going to cost lives, many lives, tens of thousands of lives in 
all probability. The amendment should have been made in order by the 
Committee on Rules, and I am asking the House now today to make this 
amendment in order. This amendment needs to be considered by the full 
House of Representatives, and it needs to be considered for no other 
reason than because by not considering it, we are placing hundreds of 
thousands of people across this country in dire jeopardy.
  We need a Food and Drug Administration that can deal with the drug 
companies and with the medical manufacturing establishments that it 
allegedly regulates, deal with them in an effective way, so that we can 
have true regulation on behalf of the safety and security of the 
American people, which we do not have today and which this Congress has 
refused to bring about.
  So I am taking this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to bring this 
amendment to the floor of the House. I want this amendment considered, 
and I hope that every Member of the House will see it his or her duty 
to adopt this amendment today.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey

  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hinchey:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section the 
     following:
       Sec. 7__. (a) Postmarket Studies.--Chapter V of the the 
     Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 351 et seq.) 
     is amended by inserting after section 505B the following 
     section:

     ``SEC. 505C. POSTMARKET STUDIES REGARDING SAFETY OF DRUGS; 
                   PHASE 4 STUDIES.

       ``The Secretary may require that the manufacturer of an 
     approved drug conduct one or more studies to confirm or 
     refute an empirical or theoretical hypothesis of a 
     significant safety issue with the drug (whether raised with 
     respect to the product directly or with respect to the class 
     of the product) that has been identified pursuant to--
       ``(1) the MedWatch postmarket surveillance system;
       ``(2) a clinical or epidemiological study;
       ``(3) the scientific literature;
       ``(4) a foreign government that regulates drugs or devices;
       ``(5) an international organization concerned with the 
     safety or effectiveness of drugs or devices; or
       ``(6) such other sources as the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate.''.
       (b) Order Regarding Postmarket Labeling.--Section 502 of 
     the the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 352) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(x) If it is a drug and the Secretary determines that its 
     labeling fails to provide information, including specific 
     wording, required by the Secretary by order on the basis that 
     the information is necessary to ensure its safe and effective 
     use.''.

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) is recognized 
in support of his amendment.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I know that this issue is controversial. I 
know that there are Members of the House who really do not want to 
address it this afternoon. But we should put that aside. We should put 
it aside because the safety and security of the American people are at 
stake here.
  The Food and Drug Administration was established by this Congress in 
order to ensure that pharmaceuticals and subsequently various forms of 
medical devices and other materials which are used by people who are 
ill, that those devices and materials can be used by people in a way 
that is safe and secure and sound. But the fact of the matter is that 
that is not happening, and we have the ocular proof in front of us 
every single day.
  I mentioned a few moments ago the situation of antidepressants. These 
antidepressants came on the market without proper, careful review; and 
in addition to that, they began to be marketed for off-label uses. As a 
result, large numbers of teenagers, young people, people in their 
twenties, began to use them when they should not have been using them, 
and the usage of those antidepressants induced suicidal potential in 
those people, and many of them carried it out. Many, many people took 
their lives in direct relationship to the use of those antidepressant 
drugs.
  When that became apparent, the Food and Drug Administration was not 
able to deal effectively with the drug manufacturers because they did 
not have the authority. They do not have the authority to tell the drug 
manufacturers that when a problem becomes evident after the drug is on 
the market that the drug company should, at the very least, change the 
label, put information on the label that tells people this kind of 
experience has been shown to happen by this group of people so that 
people can be warned about it and therefore not be likely to take it 
and so that doctors can understand that and not be likely to prescribe 
it.
  That simple act would save the lives of tens of thousands of people. 
Failing to do it almost inevitably is going to cost the lives of tens 
of thousands of Americans, because it will not be much longer before we 
see another antidepressant situation or Cox-2 inhibitor situation, 
Vioxx situation, come on the market if we do not change the rules, if 
we do not give the FDA the power to deal effectively with these drug 
manufacturers.
  The Vioxx case is a very clear, strong case in point. After a certain 
period of time when that drug was on the market, it became obvious that 
people who were taking it were suffering strokes and/or heart attacks. 
The FDA, when it became aware of that, was not able to do anything 
effectively about it. They did not even ask the drug company to take 
the drug off the market.

[[Page H4244]]

  Finally, Merck came to the table and properly removed Vioxx from the 
market, but only after hundreds of thousands of people in this country 
were seriously affected, and we estimate at least 60,000 people lost 
their lives, and the number may be higher than that; and all of that 
began to get the attention of the press and people across the country 
began to understand it.
  Now, for God's sake, what are we doing here? Are we just going to 
stand by idly while these circumstances continue to happen, while more 
and more drugs come on the market, week after week, month after month, 
while more and more people take them without understanding the 
implications and more and more people suffer, even die, as a result of 
that?
  This Congress has the responsibility to act. We need to make that 
Food and Drug Administration live up to its responsibilities. And by 
simply saying in a technical way that, no, we cannot do it today, that 
does not meet the need, not by any stretch of the imagination.
  This amendment needs to come to the floor, and this amendment needs 
to get the kind of attention that it properly deserves on behalf of the 
safety and security and the lives of the American people and to be 
adopted.
  So I move the amendment, and I ask my colleagues to embrace it today. 
Vote for it; support it. Let us pass it this afternoon.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of 
rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a 
general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing 
law.''
  This amendment directly amends existing law.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard on the point of 
order.
  Mr. Chairman, it is hard for me to believe that the rules of this 
House do not help ensure that the people we represent can trust their 
government. It is hard for me to believe that the rules of the House 
would mean that this House can busy itself telling other people how 
they should deal with end-of-life issues for dear ones, telling 
independent courts that they should not be quite so independent, and 
yet would not allow the supposedly greatest legislative body in the 
world to deal with a direct obligation of government, which is to 
ensure the public safety of the American people.
  This amendment would be in order if no Member objects to it. The 
Committee on Rules, as I understand, when they passed out the rule from 
the Committee on Rules, they did not protect this amendment under the 
rule. That does not mean that it cannot be considered by the House. The 
House can only avoid dealing with this issue if a Member chooses to 
block the House from acting on it.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge the gentleman from Texas to withdraw his 
point of order so that we can vote on this most crucial issue. But if 
the gentleman does not withdraw his motion, then I would, reluctantly, 
as I am sure would the sponsor of the amendment, have to concede the 
point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard?
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak on the point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to echo my colleagues' comments, because I think 
that we have an obligation. In my opening comments, I said that I 
believed that this bill is about what the House of Representatives and 
Members who are part of this effort have been asked to do, and we have 
been asked to protect the public interest on a whole variety of 
measures, and, in this case, we are talking about life and death.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman must confine her remarks to the point 
of order.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, it would seem to me that the regular order 
of the House would be to allow legislation that in fact meets the 
definition or the goal of the mission that we have been entrusted with. 
I wish that the Committee on Rules would have made this amendment in 
order because it is so critical to public safety.
  I concur with my colleague when he says if it is not made in order, 
then we have to concede the point of order. But what we are conceding 
is the life and death of American people, and that is not the regular 
order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment proposes directly to change 
existing law. The amendment therefore constitutes legislation in 
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.


           Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Schwarz of michigan

  Mr. SCHWARZ of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Schwarz of Michigan:
       Add at the end (before the short title) the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 7__. It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of 
     Agriculture should use the transfer authority provided by 
     section 442 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7772) to 
     implement the strategic plan developed by the Animal and 
     Plant Health Inspection Service for the eradication of 
     Emerald Ash Borer in the States of Michigan, Ohio, and 
     Indiana.

  Mr. SCHWARZ of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, CCC funds are transferred to 
APHIS because of foreign Animals, Pests & Diseases that have come into 
the United States and are destroying agriculture resources and 
products. Since this is a tight budget year and the dollars 
appropriated will not fully take care of the emergency situation of the 
spread of EAB and the millions of ash trees in need of more attention 
from the CCC and OMB.
  Therefore, this amendment is a sense of Congress to support the 
requests of USDA and APHIS to fund the eradication program of EAB 
within Michigan before it spreads to other states.
  Michigan has natural barriers which are the great lakes that provide 
a natural containment with this emergency eradication plan.
  This is an emergency situation for our agriculture community and as 
with any invasive species, we continue to run in to the obstacle of 
funding from OMB. With this amendment we want the OMB to reconsider the 
severity of the EAB situation. This amendment is meant to suggest, in 
strong terms, that it is Congress's intent that the mechanism within 
this statute is to be used to meet the foreign pest emergency needs of 
Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, Maryland & Michigan.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCHWARZ of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has discussed this amendment 
with us and with the minority; and to forgo further debate, I would be 
happy to accept the amendment.
  Mr. SCHWARZ of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank 
the chairman and am delighted that he has decided to accept the 
amendment, and we will move on.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Schwarz amendment 
emphasizing the intent of Congress that full funding for the control of 
Emerald Ash Borer must be provided. I had intended to offer an 
amendment emphasizing the need for emergency funding and thank Chairman 
Bonilla for his work with us on this issue, and with respect and 
appreciation knowing we still have much to work on will not extend 
floor debate today.
  It is vital that we take action as quickly as possible to deal with 
control and containment this year. USDA, at the order of the Office of 
Management and Budget, has not been able to fully respond to the 
requests for funds from Ohio and Michigan. Ohio recently requested an 
additional $10.1 million that is needed immediately.
  The Emerald Ash Borer was identified in Michigan in July, 2002. It 
has been in Michigan for perhaps five years, having come in packing 
material from Asia.
  Since then, several counties in southeastern Michigan and now 
counties in northwestern Ohio have been infected with this creature. 
Literally billions of ash trees are at risk unless this creature is 
stopped. Regrettably, there is no known way to eradicate the insect 
without starving it from new wood sources. So as trees by the thousands 
are being cut down in our region.
  As I said, the State of Ohio has recently asked the Department of 
Agriculture for an additional $10.1 million in emergency funding to

[[Page H4245]]

control the spread of this insect. This is in addition to the $11.6 
million that was requested earlier this year, although USDA provided 
only $10.2 million. This is in addition to more than $50 million that 
has already been provided to Michigan to control the spread of the 
insect from its primary infestation site.
  Mr. Chairman, Ohio needs more funding now to control this insect for 
which it bears no responsibility. Neighborhoods are being devastated in 
Ohio, as they already have been in Michigan. Businesses are adversely 
affected. Property values are being adversely affected. The longer we 
take the provide effective controls, the more damage will be caused, 
the broader the area of infestation will become, and the more it will 
ultimately cost to end this infestation.
  I had planned to offer my own amendment calling for emergency use of 
funds to deal with this problem, even though I know that the bill 
already provides some funding for emerald ash control in the coming 
year--$14 million even though expert opinion suggests that we will need 
$55 million. Hopefully this money will come via the emergency route.
  Chairman Bonilla and ranking member DeLauro, I thank you for your 
support. I want to work with you to secure the right level of funding 
to deal with this disease, as well as the many other invasive species 
pests that plague several states. They may be different in their 
makeup, but they are equally devastating to the communities they 
infest.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Schwarz).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey

  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hinchey:
       Page 83, after line 19, insert the following section:
       Sec. 7__. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used--
       (1) to grant a waiver of a financial conflict of interest 
     requirement pursuant to section 505(n)(4) of the Federal 
     Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act for any voting member of an 
     advisory committee or panel of the Food and Drug 
     Administration; or
       (2) to make a certification under section 208(b)(3) of 
     title 18, United States Code, for any such voting member.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. HINCHEY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on 
this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 30 minutes, to 
be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the 
opponent.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) will control 
15 minutes, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) will control 15 
minutes in opposition.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit the Food and Drug 
Administration from appointing scientists who have conflicts of 
interest to FDA advisory committees. The amendment does not change 
current law; it simply makes sure that the FDA is adhering to current 
law.
  The FDA is charged with protecting the public health and, to assist 
with this mission, the FDA relies heavily on advisory committees 
composed of outside scientists to guide the agency policy on the safety 
and effectiveness of drugs and medical devices when questions arise 
regarding those products. While the FDA is not bound by the decisions 
of these panels, the agency itself calls advisory committees one of its 
most important resources for helping to regulate the over 150,000 
marketed medical products that the FDA oversees.
  Because of the critically important nature of these committees, there 
should be no question as to whether the committee members are looking 
out for the public health. But recent FDA actions have created serious 
doubts about whether committee members are serving only the public 
interests and, as a result, industry biases now taint many advisory 
panel decisions.
  Over the past few years, the FDA has routinely waived conflict of 
interest prohibitions and appointed scientists with direct conflicts of 
interest to serve on these critical public panels. These appointments 
completely undermine the objectivity of this outside advice and bias 
the committee's recommendations, which are reached by a vote of the 
panel members, some of whom have financial ties to the products being 
reviewed by that very same panel.
  There have been numerous high-profile examples of this over the past 
18 months. Just this past April, for example, the FDA convened an 
advisory committee to examine whether or not to allow silicon breast 
implants back on the market. That committee contained a scientist who 
had just recently made a promotional video for a manufacturer of those 
implants.
  Two months prior to that, the FDA convened an advisory panel to 
review the safety of Cox-2 inhibitors, drugs like Vioxx, which have 
caused tens of thousands of heart attacks and strokes. Ten of the 32 
scientists on that panel had direct financial links to the 
manufacturers of those drugs. When it came time for the committee to 
make its recommendations, those ties made all the difference. Without 
the votes of the ten conflicted scientists, two of those three drugs 
and the Cox-2 inhibitor class would have been voted down by the panel, 
instead of receiving the very narrow support and approval they did as a 
result of those conflicted scientists' votes.
  Last year, when there was a huge controversy around the link between 
antidepressants and suicide, especially among young people, the FDA 
convened an advisory panel to make recommendations on how the agency 
should handle those drugs. Three of the 11 scientists on that committee 
had been paid consultants to the manufacturers of those 
antidepressants.
  These examples are just the tip of the iceberg. Advisory panels on 
OxyContin, oncology drugs, even over-the-counter athletes' foot creams, 
all had scientists with conflicts of interest. Almost every advisory 
committee meeting begins with an FDA statement waiving the conflicts of 
interest of some of the scientists on that panel.
  If you think that scientists who rely on drug companies for their 
financial wherewithal are going to recommend that the FDA take action 
that will harm the company that is paying them, then you are living in 
a fantasy world.
  The FDA claims that it cannot find enough qualified scientists 
without conflicts of interest to fill its advisory committees. This 
statement is laughable on its surface and an insult to the thousands of 
independent doctors across this country. It is also not accurate. As 
the medical journal, The Lancet, recently editorialized, ``It is hard 
to believe that in a country with 125 medical schools, not to mention 
the pool of international experts, the FDA cannot find experts who do 
not have financial ties with companies whose products are under 
review.'' Of course, the FDA can find scientists without conflicts of 
interest. They just do not want to do it, and they are not doing it.
  Advisory committees are critical parts of the FDA's regulatory 
scheme, and they should be free of any direct conflict of interest. 
Without this, there is no way to assure the public that a panel's 
recommendations are fair and unbiased and in the interest of the public 
health.
  After one of the most tumultuous years in the FDA's history, this 
amendment is needed to restore the public's confidence and integrity 
that has been lost in the FDA's advisory system. A wide range of public 
health groups support this amendment, and numerous recent editorials 
have called for this kind of reform. I urge all of my colleagues to 
support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Let me explain 
what this extreme restriction on the Food and Drug Administration would 
do. The amendment would not allow funding to grant conflict of interest 
waivers for any Food and Drug Administration advisory committee. The 
effect would

[[Page H4246]]

be that the top experts in the field of vaccine research or cancer 
treatments or cardiac devices would not be able to advise the Federal 
Government about vaccines, biological products, medical devices, and 
drugs.
  The conflict of interest waivers exist so that the most knowledgeable 
scientists, the ones you would want to consult if your own family was 
ill, can advise government agencies. These top scientists are few in 
number and very specialized. Most of them have worked in research 
sponsored by industry at some point in their careers. We in Congress 
devised this waiver system so that such experts could serve the 
government when the need for their services outweighed the potential of 
conflict of interest due to financial ties to the industry.
  Since many fields of research are specialized and unique, the 
conflict of interest waivers are necessary. The granting of a waiver is 
not pro forma but a measured decision by an impartial party. In some 
cases, waivers are granted only for participation in the advisory group 
discussion, and the individual is not permitted to vote on the advisory 
committee recommendation.
  I would also like to draw the attention of my colleagues to the term 
``advisory.'' Advisory committees make recommendations to FDA but do 
not vote on product approvals. Product approval decisions are made by 
federally employed scientists.
  I would ask my colleagues not to cripple the advisory committee 
system by making it impossible to recruit the appropriate level of 
scientific expertise. Please vote no on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise to speak on the Hinchey amendment to require that the FDA stop 
waiving conflict of interest revelations by their advisors and to start 
to make an affirmative search for scientists who can give unconflicted 
advice to this critically important agency.
  Unfortunately, there is abundant evidence that scientists are being 
invited onto and accepted onto these committees, even when they tell 
the FDA that they have a conflict. They are permitted to serve, 
regardless of conflict. This must stop.
  Other agencies, such as the NIH, have regularly found unconflicted, 
fully qualified professional advisors so that the agency can receive 
the best, unbiased advice possible.
  I am mindful that there may be scientists whose expertise deserves to 
be presented to an advisory committee, and nothing in this amendment, 
as I understand it, precludes these individuals from being asked to 
testify before a committee.
  When enacted, this amendment will also start to contribute to and 
rebuild the credibility of the actions of FDA. We cannot have even the 
aura of influence by the pharmaceutical industry or other regulated 
industries when it comes to the FDA.
  Surely, in a country that is renowned for its scientific and medical 
expertise, I think we have 125 medical schools in the United States, 
that it is possible to find scientists without conflicts of interest to 
advise the FDA and to protect the public health.
  I urge support for the Hinchey amendment.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, can I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, is there anyone on the other side who 
wishes to speak on the amendment?
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa has 13 minutes remaining and 
reserves the balance of his time.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding me this time.
  As I hear this discussion move forward, I find it nothing short of 
absolutely amazing that anybody can rise to defend the current system.
  The pharmaceutical industry in this country is corrupt from top to 
bottom. They have corrupted the Food and Drug Administration. They have 
corrupted academia to the point where they pay anybody that might ever 
issue an opinion about any of their products, and this continues to get 
worse day by day. We have evidence to all of these things, and it is 
absolutely and utterly ridiculous that we do not hold FDA accountable 
to provide a system of unbiased opinions so that the American people 
can get a safe product. We have seen the results of this corrupt system 
and the willingness of our own government to allow the pharmaceutical 
industry to continue to rob our own people, and it goes on and on and 
on. It is wrong. It does not make any sense. It puts the public health 
at risk.
  We just had a big debate on whether or not to label meat and where it 
comes from. We know what these drugs will do, we have plenty of people 
that know what they will do, and when we put the information out there, 
anybody can figure it out. You do not have to be all broke out in 
brilliance to know when this stuff is bad. But when you are on the 
payroll of these companies, folks just kind of seem to have a little 
trouble saying, this is a terrible drug and we do not want to put it on 
the market. It is a bad idea.
  I am the only registered pharmacist in the United States Congress, 
and it is astounding to me to see what has happened to this industry in 
the last 30 years and the willingness for them to take advantage of the 
American people over and over and over again.
  Mr. Chairman, if this body is going to do anything to serve the 
public health and welfare of our people on this day, we should pass 
this amendment, and I thank the gentleman from New York for 
courageously bringing it to the floor of this House.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my time.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Hinchey 
amendment, and I appreciate the effort he has been doing with these 
last two amendments, and I hope we will continue his work, because the 
amendment is very important. It will help us put a stop to the conflict 
of interests which actually weakens the drug approval process.
  The FDA advisory committees are charged with ensuring that the 
medicines our families take are safe and effective.

                              {time}  1515

  Current law prohibits conflicts of interest between the members on 
the advisory committee and the companies whose drug is being examined 
by the advisory committee.
  Though the FDA has the authority to waive this prohibition under 
certain limited circumstances, this exception has now become the rule, 
and too often the FDA places scientists with financial connections to 
the drugs they are examining on the advisory committees.
  Conflicts of interest create disastrous consequences. In some cases, 
one-third of the advisory committee's appointees do part-time 
consulting work, research or own stock in the companies whose drugs 
they are considering. Such a committee approved the drug Vioxx. As many 
as 100,000 people have been injured by taking Vioxx. Had the members of 
the advisory committee with ties to the industry been removed, Vioxx 
would not have been approved.
  Some will argue and some may argue that scientists with financial 
connections to the industry may still be unbiased. However, this week 
an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that senior executives 
at Merck threatened to damage a Harvard researcher's career if he 
publicly lectured about the health effects of Vioxx.
  In such an environment, where those who are trying to help protect 
our families are threatened by drug companies, it is inconceivable that 
advisory committee members can remain unbiased as they examine their 
part-time employer's drugs. The financial interests are too great, not 
only for those who sit on the advisory committee, but also the drug 
companies who produce these drugs, and do whatever they can to get them 
approved.

[[Page H4247]]

  We have so much work to do in this area. The Hinchey amendment does 
not put any new requirements upon the FDA, merely enforces the law as 
is written; and this Congress should stand up and enforce the law as 
explained in previous Congresses.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to note that in response to past amendments in the same 
effect, the Office of Government Ethics has said the government would 
be depriving itself of much of the best and most relevant outside 
expertise in many areas.
  The amendment would prohibit waivers for financial interests that are 
so insubstantial, remote, or inconsequential that they are typically 
permitted, even for regular full-time government employees.
  They went on to say, existing law strikes the correct balance between 
protecting the government from inappropriate conflicts of interest and 
recognizing the need for temporary experts who may have unavoidable 
conflicts in relevant fields of inquiry. I think those concerns are 
relevant to the Hinchey amendment before us and support a ``no'' vote 
on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I frankly find the arguments that have been presented 
against this amendment, in a word, incredible. They seem to me to be 
coming from the entities in our country, in our economy, that need 
regulation. It seems as if the words were written by them.
  We have 125 medical schools in this country. We have a bevy of expert 
scientists who are capable of dealing with these kinds of issues. For 
anyone to stand on the floor of this House and say that you cannot 
construct a panel, an advisory panel to advise the Food and Drug 
Administration with regard to the safety and security of a particular 
drug without putting on that panel one-third of the members who are 
conflicted in their interests, who are being paid by the economic 
entities that are about to be regulated, or should be regulated, or who 
have done commercial advertisements for some of those entities, that 
you cannot construct a panel without having a third of the members with 
that kind of conflict of interest, is the most absurd statement I think 
I have ever heard uttered on the floor of this House.
  We have scientific bodies throughout our government and throughout 
the private sector, throughout the National Institutes of Health, 
throughout any number of scientific organizations, who put together 
panels; and they are never obliged to include within those panels 
people who are conflicted in their interests with regard to the 
decisions that are going to be made by those panels. It is ridiculous, 
absurd to stipulate that you cannot construct a panel without having 
people with a conflict of interest.
  I am just asking the Members of this body to tell the Food and Drug 
Administration that when you draw together a panel, do the same thing 
that other regulatory bodies do. Make sure that among the members of 
those panels, there is no one who is conflicted in their interests.
  No one who is being monetarily compensated by the entity that is 
being regulated; in the case of the drug companies no one who is 
getting money from the drug companies, no one who is on the payroll of 
drug companies. That is all you have to do. It is a very simple thing. 
There are thousands of people to reach out to who are capable and 
qualified to come onto those panels and make those kinds of decisions.
  To say that you cannot put together a panel without including in it 
one-third of the members who are conflicted in their interests is 
absolutely ridiculous.
  And so, Mr. Chairman, I ask the Members of this body to do something 
that is in the best interests of the people of our Nation. Let us have 
a Food and Drug Administration that is actually carrying out its 
regulatory authorities as this Congress set them up to do.
  Let us have an FDA that actually regulates the entities.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, let me just ask a point of inquiry here. 
As I understand it, this amendment is for a year's duration?
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. HINCHEY. That is correct.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Does it not make sense that we try this to see what is 
workable? I mean, we are not talking about in perpetuity. Am I right in 
my assessment of that?
  Mr. HINCHEY. The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) is 
correct. This would simply be for 1 year. It is a trial, in effect; and 
we ought to put it in place.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) 
will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Sweeney

  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Sweeney:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to pay the salaries or expenses of personnel to 
     inspect horses under section 3 of the Federal Meat Inspection 
     Act (21 U.S.C. 603) or under the guidelines issued under 
     section 903 the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform 
     Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 1901 note; Public Law 104-127).

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on 
this amendment and any amendment thereto be limited to 30 minutes to be 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the 
opponent.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, several weeks ago we passed on the floor here an 
amendment banning the slaughter of wild horses that had been sneaked 
into the omnibus bill by a substantial bipartisan vote.
  This amendment I offer today is a supplement to that amendment, and 
one that we have sought a vote on, an up-or-down vote, for several 
years in this body. For that reason in particular, I want to thank the 
subcommittee chairman for affording us this opportunity.
  The amendment essentially would end the use of taxpayer dollars to 
enable and subsidize foreign enterprises, largely operating in 
opposition to the vast opinion and support of United States citizens, 
and in fact the majority of States have outlawed the slaughter of 
horses for human consumption; and yet this process continues on.
  Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of misinformation spread about 
this issue. The opposition will say this amendment will lead to an 
increase in the abuse of horses, or horses running wild in our streets. 
Such statements are not true, and I want to offer some facts.
  First of all, each year 65,000 horses are slaughtered in this country 
for human consumption in Europe and in Asia, not here, where they are 
sold as a delicacy.
  Another 30,000 are trucked to Canada and Mexico for slaughter. 
Misstatement number one, that slaughter is the same as humane 
euthanasia, it is not, Mr. Chairman. Slaughter is not the same as 
humane euthanasia administered by a veterinarian. Euthanasia of horses 
is administered by lethal injection, whereas slaughter is administered 
by unskilled, untrained workers using the captive bolt. Many times this 
is administered improperly, causing unnecessary pain and suffering 
before death, and that is after these horses have been transported in 
excess of 1,000 miles in the most inhumane conditions perceived.
  Misstatement number two, that if this legislation is successful, we 
will

[[Page H4248]]

cause an overpopulation of horses. Passage of this amendment will not 
cause an overpopulation of horses, since each year the numbers are 
this, about 690,000 horses die in the U.S., many of which are 
euthanized by licensed veterinarians.
  Slaughter represents only 1 percent of the horses that die each year, 
and this would not result in overpopulation of horses as some have 
suggested.
  Mr. Chairman, it is simply this: Americans do not profit from 
slaughtering horses. Horses are not bred in the United States for that 
purpose. This is an export-driven market. Foreigners eat our horses and 
foreign companies make money off the sale of the meat. This amendment 
simply says that the use of American taxpayer dollars to pay for the 
salaries and the work of USDA inspectors ought to stop, and those 
resources ought to be committed to making sure the food supply and the 
food chain here in this country are fully protected.
  Let us stop this practice, a practice that flies in the face of 
generations of precedent here in Congress and strong opposition by the 
American public.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to this amendment, 
and yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), for whom I have a great 
deal of respect, has worked on this issue for some time. I know he also 
has a separate legislating bill that he is trying to move through the 
process, where this issue and this whole topic could be more 
appropriately addressed through the authorizing committee.
  This amendment will shut down an industry without having a hearing, 
or any due process. The amendment creates a crisis for animal health 
issues. It prohibits USDA from inspecting horses that may have West 
Nile virus, or vesicular stomatitis, both of which can affect other 
animals and humans if those horses are destined for slaughter.
  The estimated cost to feed and care for 50,000 horses is at least 60 
to $100 million per year. Who will pay, or will more horses go to the 
rendering plant instead? What is the real effect of this measure? There 
is no way of knowing, because it has not been vetted through the 
process.
  Demand for the product will not change. Almost all of the meat from 
the U.S. is exported, and those countries will simply find another 
source. I oppose this amendment very strongly.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield for as much time as he may consume to the 
chairman of the authorizing committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment. This amendment is a piece of legislation that has been 
introduced by Members of the House that would ban horse slaughter in 
the country.
  And, quite frankly, this legislation has been opposed by me and many 
others, but it is also a fact that this particular amendment is far 
worse than the legislation that the gentleman has offered for this 
reason: the principal concern stated by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Sweeney) is that the manner of the transport and the actual 
slaughter of these horses is inhumane.
  But this amendment would simply limit the inspection of the horses 
for the purpose of slaughter; does not in any way stop what his other 
legislation at least attempts to do, that is, the transport of the 
horses to Canada, Mexico or anywhere else for the purpose of slaughter. 
The effect of that then is that the inhumane transport and the 
slaughter itself continue, but the horses are transported far greater 
distances.
  Now, the gentleman makes reference to the fact that this is only 1 
percent of the horses that die each year. And he cites 65,000 as a 
figure. But I would suggest to the gentleman that he is way, way, way 
off on his numbers, because there are not 65,000 times 100 or 6\1/2\ 
million horses dying each year in this country.
  With the average life expectancy of a horse of more than 25 years, 
that would mean that we have more than 150 million horses in the United 
States. We do not have anywhere near that number. So this percentage is 
a far higher percentage.
  That gives rise to the concern raised by the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Bonilla) and many others that you are going to have hundreds of 
thousands of unwanted horses, perhaps at the rate of as many as 50,000 
a year according to the American Veterinary Medical Association. At a 
cost of $2,000 per horse to take care of them, that is a hundred 
million dollars times the average life expectancy that would remain in 
the lives of these horses if they were not sent to slaughter.
  If that average is 10 years, you are talking about a billion dollars 
after you get 10 years out from now in terms of having to support and 
take care of these horses.
  Now, the gentleman says no problem with that, but the evidence is 
pretty sparse that there will not be any problem with that because no 
country anywhere ever, ever has banned the slaughter of horses. That is 
what his amendment would accomplish.

                              {time}  1530

  So I suggest that that is a very, very bad idea with far-reaching 
complications.
  I am not by any means alone in this concern. More than 60 reputable 
horse organizations, animal health organizations, and agricultural 
organizations have banded together to oppose this amendment, and they 
are some of the most respected people who own horses and take care of 
horses in the United States. The American Quarter Horse Association, 
the largest association of horse owners in the world, strongly opposes 
this amendment. The American Painted Horse Association, the second 
largest association of horse owners, opposes this amendment. More than 
a dozen State horse councils, including the New York State Horse 
Council and the Virginia State Horse Council, oppose the gentleman's 
legislation.
  It is also opposed by those who take care of the health of our 
horses, very respected organizations like the American Veterinarian 
Medical Association, the American Association of Equine Practitioners. 
More than 7,000 horse doctors, the people who take care of horses 
themselves, are concerned about the implications of what this amendment 
will have if it is allowed to go into effect and ban the slaughter of 
horses.
  Now, I do not believe anybody in this room eats horses. What this is 
about is what is the best approach for the humane treatment of horses, 
and the American Veterinarian Medical Association and the American 
Association of Equine Practitioners recognize the method by which 
horses are slaughtered in the United States as a humane method of 
euthanasia of disposing of horses.
  So the bill does not prohibit other means of deposition of horses. If 
people still want to put down their horse by some other means, it does 
not stop them from doing that. It will simply stop the proper 
inspection of these horses, which, as the gentleman from Texas 
correctly notes, will deprive us of a lot of useful information that 
will be gathered by those veterinarians about diseases and so on that 
will confront these horses if indeed they do not get properly inspected 
and they have serious diseases.
  Other organizations that oppose this: The American Farm Bureau 
opposes this legislation. The American Meat Institute opposes this 
legislation. The Equine Nutrition and Physiology Society opposes this 
legislation. The Animal Welfare Council opposes this legislation. The 
National Horse Show Commission opposes this legislation. Organizations 
that represent literally millions of horse owners in this country and 
elsewhere around the world oppose this legislation because of their 
concern, not about whether somebody is eating horses or not but whether 
or not these horses will be treated humanely if they are not allowed to 
go through the process they go through today.
  So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. It is not in the 
best interest of America's horses, it is not in the best interest of 
America's horse owners, and it is not in the best interest of the 
fiscal concerns that we must have if we are confronted down the road 
with the possibility of having to take care of these many, many horses.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me quickly respond to some of the information that 
has been put out there.

[[Page H4249]]

  First of all, on the cost end of it, CBO said already this is a cost-
neutral proposition. In fact, it is my contention that it will give the 
USDA extra resources to do the job of protecting the American food 
chain.
  Secondly, we talked about the failure of a lack of a hearing. We 
looked for a hearing for 2 years. That necessitated bringing this 
legislation.
  Finally, if we are simply going to get into a debate over which 
organizations support it, there are vastly more organizations, some of 
the most preeminent experts in the horse industry who support this 
legislation, including Congress's top veterinarian, Senator Ensign, who 
is introducing a counterpart bill in the Senate.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, first question, what is the effect of this 
amendment?
  This amendment in simple terms will stop the slaughter or human 
consumption of horses, the meat of which will be exported to foreign 
countries. It does not stop, affect or any way impede euthanasia by 
veterinarians. It stops the brutal slaughter at slaughterhouses. 
Sometimes horses are jacked up by their hind legs and have their 
throats slit. This is the kind of slaughter that this bill will 
prohibit so that the meat can be exported to Europe and other places.
  Secondly, who is affected? Slaughterhouses in two States. That is it. 
Three different slaughterhouse locations in two States. That is it. 
Those are the net effects because, you see, Americans do not eat horse 
meat.
  These horses are not slaughtered in this country, 65,000 last year, 
for consumption here. They are slaughtered for consumption in Europe 
and Asia, and 35,000 were not trucked to Mexico and Canada only to be 
euthanized there. They were shipped there to be slaughtered. So this 
affects foreign consumers of American horse meat. That is all. No 
Americans are affected, and only three plants in two States are 
actually affected.
  Who is for it and who is against it? I will leave this 7-page 
memorandum which shows individuals, organizations, horse raisers, horse 
racers, horse farmers, horse lovers of all kinds who support it, 
including a substantial number of veterinarians. Seven pages long, that 
is how many people are in favor of it.
  Next question: What do we know about the consequences of this? What 
happens when you stop the slaughter of horses at, albeit, just three 
plants? Well, we know from practical experience in five States, 
including California, the largest State for the last 7 years, this law 
has been in effect Statewide in California and four other States and in 
California since 1998. What has been the effect? Have there been horses 
that have been left for neglect, derelict horses? No, there have been 
no effects. Have there been horses that have been too numerous to be 
euthanized? No. Practically, in the five States that have implemented 
this law, there has been no effect whatsoever.
  Finally, what is the legislative history of this bill? The 
legislative history is we filed a bill like this in the last Congress. 
We filed it again in this Congress. In the last Congress, after we put 
on an effort to win support for it, we collected 225 co-sponsors. We 
never had a hearing. We were entitled to one. So we come here today 
using a different parliamentary procedure.
  But this bill has been thoroughly exposed, thoroughly supported, 
thoroughly argued for and against; and today we are entitled to this 
vote on the House floor. And if the 225 Members who have supported our 
bill in the past come forward, we will see that the will of the House 
is that this becomes the law of the land.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me 
time, and I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words on this 
issue.
  As I listen to this debate and I am listening to the points that are 
being made by the other side, and, by the way, I rise in opposition to 
the Sweeney amendment, one of the questions that has not been answered 
here is what is the distinction between a steer, a hog, and a horse? 
Why would we elevate the horse to a level beyond that of another 
animal? Does it have a certain intrinsic value that distinguishes it?
  That is something that I would like to hear, but I think it is 
important for the people who own horses to manage their horses.
  Another question is, should horses be eaten? I have not really heard 
the answer to that. I know they do that in other places of the world. I 
have never eaten a horse. I had some zebra in Africa last year and, 
actually, it was the best meat I had on the continent. I never felt the 
desire to eat a horse, but they do that in other countries.
  We have a horse herd that needs to be managed. Whatever that is, 
whether it is a 1 percent, a 2 percent or a 10 percent of the herd that 
is slaughtered, all of it does something that allows them to cull out 
the herd. It saves those horses from disease and starvation. And if you 
have seen those horses as I have in dry lot that were not taken care 
of, you do not want to turn these horses over to the people who do not 
have the means to take care of them.
  But the U.S. horse herd should be managed. We should be humane with 
our animals. We should treat them well and give them veterinarian 
treatment, and those that do not fit into the plans need to be managed 
and taken care of and euthanized.
  Now there is also the address made that we are doing this for foreign 
interests, that this is for the interests of foreign markets and 
foreign palates. We have a balance of trade that is now a minus $617 
billion a year. What is wrong with marketing American products that 
help that, reduce the deficit in the balance of trade? And, by the way, 
if it is the euros that come from France, that is okay with me. I think 
that is a great way for us to start to repair the balance of trade.
  Another thing we cannot do is set up a species in this country that 
sets it up as a sacred species. American horses cannot be turned into 
sacred cows by the Sweeney amendment.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) has 8\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) has 6 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me quickly answer my good friend, the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. King) by saying 2 things. When Ferdinand, the great 
horse champion, was sold for slaughter, he was marketed as ``eating an 
American champion.'' There is a distinction there.
  Number two, I would ask how many zebras, how many cows do we know the 
names of? We know the names of many horses, and the fact is horses are 
not raised in this Nation for human consumption.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Whitfield).
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rahall) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) for bringing this 
amendment to the floor.
  I would point out that we hear a lot from the American Equine 
Veterinarian Practitioners and the American Quarter Horse Association 
about their great concern for these horses, and yet there are hundreds 
of organizations in the country today who provide funding through their 
foundation to provide retirement homes for unwanted horses. Yet I am 
not aware that the American Equine Veterinarian Practitioners do that 
through a foundation, nor the American Quarter Horse Association, nor 
do they do it through a foundation; and they are the most prolific 
breeders of any breed in the country.
  I will also say we are talking about two foreign-owned companies 
here, one owned by a French family, one owned by a Belgium family. They 
are the only ones slaughtering horses in America.
  In addition to that, the Attorney General of Texas, who is now a U.S. 
Senator, wrote a legal opinion while he was Attorney General stating 
that it was illegal to slaughter horses in Texas. And yet, despite 
that, the slaughterhouse brought a lawsuit, and that case is now 
pending in U.S. District Court.

[[Page H4250]]

  The Mayor of Kaufman, Texas, where one of plants is located, has 
written a letter to us urging us to try to shut these plants down 
because of their consistent violation of environmental laws.
  But one of the things that is most difficult about this process is 
that, first of all, I think everyone would agree horses have not been 
raised for slaughter. Unlike cows, pigs and chickens, they have not 
been raised for slaughter.
  When you take a cow, pig, chicken or whatever to an auction house you 
know it is going to be slaughtered. But many people when they take a 
horse to an auction are unaware because there is a lack of disclosure. 
In fact, there is an effort made to conceal that self-described 
``killer buyers'' are at the auction house and they take the horses to 
slaughter.
  Then the process of the captive penetrating bolt being administered 
by low-skilled workers, low-paid workers who frequently have to do it 
two or three times before the horse is stunned and then his throat is 
slit, I would dare to say that is not humane. Now the leadership of the 
American Equine Practitioners say that it is humane. But if you talk to 
individual veterinarians, they would take controversy with that.
  For every page of supporters opposing this legislation, we have pages 
of entities and individuals and organizations that support this 
legislation. And I might add a few of them that support it.
  We have the owners of the last 12 Kentucky Derby winners supporting 
it. We have the National Thoroughbred Racing Association supporting it. 
We have the Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association supporting it. 
We have the New York Racing Authority supporting it. We have Churchill 
Downs supporting it. I could go on and on and on. But, most important, 
we have an inconsistent policy in the U.S. Government today on this 
issue. We prohibit sending horses out of America by sea for the purpose 
of slaughter, and yet we allow them to be slaughtered in the United 
States.
  So it is an inconsistent policy. There is a lack of disclosure at the 
auction house. And when California banned horse slaughter, the only 
thing that they found was that, one, horse theft went down and horse 
abuse and neglect did not go up.

                              {time}  1545

  With that, I would urge the support of the Sweeney amendment.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield for as much time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), chairman of the 
authorizing committee.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for the time.
  I want to respond to a few of the remarks made by the gentleman from 
Kentucky and the gentleman from New York.
  First of all, he talked about an inconsistent policy because we do 
not allow horses to be shipped overseas for slaughter purposes by boat. 
We do nothing to stop that from being done with regard to transport to 
Canada or Mexico. The fact of the matter is this amendment does not 
stop it.
  So when my colleagues talk about the humane treatment of horses, this 
amendment is going to result in more inhumane treatment of horses if 
that is their guide, because they are going to be shipped greater 
distances to Canada and Mexico because they cannot be sent to slaughter 
facilities in the U.S.
  Second, the gentleman from New York makes reference to the great 
racehorse Ferdinand, like this amendment would have stopped Ferdinand 
from having gone to slaughter. It absolutely would not have. I did not 
like seeing Ferdinand go to slaughter, but Ferdinand was sold to a 
Japanese owner and exported not for slaughter purposes but for breeding 
purposes; and later on in Japan, he was slaughtered. This amendment 
will do absolutely nothing to stop that same situation from happening 
to any other racehorse in the world.
  Thirdly, the gentleman makes references to just three slaughter 
facilities. That is not true either. There are other slaughter 
facilities for horses. For example, there is a slaughterhouse in 
Nebraska which solely slaughters horses for zoos and sanctuaries for 
big cats which would be essentially shut down by this amendment because 
horses provide the proper type of high protein diet for those animals, 
when they are not out racing across the savannahs, because beef simply 
is not good for cats, these large cats.
  The gentleman from New York says it is budget neutral, but the fact 
of the matter is all he is talking about there is budget neutral in 
terms of this particular amendment not costing any money; but 
consequences of the amendment will cost a lot of money because this 
amendment does absolutely nothing to stop the many practices that occur 
in this country that create unwanted horses, everything from nurse 
mares in the thoroughbred racing industry, to Premarin mares to produce 
the drug Premarin, to the foals of those mares, to the fact that for 
every Smarty Jones that is created, there are hundreds and hundreds of 
unwanted racehorses who do not make the grade and other horses that are 
unsuitable for riding and other pleasure purposes or showing. Those 
horses, as well, will fall into that category of unwanted horses.
  Nor does the amendment do anything to take care of all those unwanted 
horses as they start to accumulate in our society. We have already 
talked about the massive estimated costs that will take place as a 
result of that.
  Finally, the gentleman from Kentucky talks about the facilities that 
exist that would take care of horses, and we have some of those 
facilities in the country today. This amendment does not establish 
standards of care that horse rescue facilities must meet.
  The humane society of the United States, which supports the 
amendment, admits that equine shelters are less well-established than 
cat and dog shelters. Citing extreme costs and staff time needed to 
shelter horses, the humane society warned of needing to be aware of 
distinctions between sheltering horses and sheltering other companion 
animals. Current horse-rescue facilities are overwhelmed with the 
amount of horses they already care for without this amendment being in 
effect and are in desperate search of additional funding.
  The American Association of Equine Practitioners estimated that in 
the first year alone of a slaughter ban 2,700 additional equine 
facilities would be needed to keep up with unwanted horses displaced by 
the ban, compounding the problem by adding additional facilities that 
will also be searching for additional funding.
  This is a bad, bad idea. I know there is a lot of emotion that says 
this is a great thing to do. It is not and it is not in the best 
interests of the horses of this country to pass this amendment. I urge 
my colleagues to oppose it.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just simply say, before I recognize, that the gentleman raises some 
interesting points; and I would hope that the authorizing committee 
could go to hearings in the near future.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friends, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney); the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt); and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).
  What has become of us as a country, selling these horses off for 
horse meat to be eaten on the other side of our oceans?
  The wild horse is an icon of American history. The gentleman from 
Iowa asked what is the difference between a horse and a steer and a 
hog? The horse is an icon along with the bald eagle. What is the 
difference between a bald eagle and a pigeon or a turkey? And if you do 
not know the difference, we cannot explain it to you.
  Shakespeare once said that ``Horses are as full of spirit as the 
month of May and as gorgeous as the sun in midsummer''. Does everything 
have to be converted to the bottom line? There are so many alternatives 
to slaughtering these beautiful creatures that are on public lands. We 
used to have 1 million at the turn of the century. We are down to 
35,000 wild horses on public lands. That is sad and wrong.
  We have responsibility over these beautiful creatures. They ought not 
be cut up in such an inhumane way, and shipped overseas for people who 
want

[[Page H4251]]

to eat horse meat. That is not what we are about as a country. There 
are so many other alternatives.
  We can use animal contraception methods. We could reopen over 100 
herd management areas that the Bureau of Land Management has closed. We 
could start centers such as the one I saw this weekend, 61 horses 
brought from the wild West for adoption. They came from Nevada and 
Wyoming and California, beautiful creatures. People in the east coast 
are adopting them.
  There are so many things we could be doing rather than selling these 
beautiful creatures for horse meat. We are not just about dollars and 
cents. We are about the things that made our country great. The wild 
horse is one of those things. It inspires poetry; and if my colleagues 
do not understand that, I guess we can't very well communicate why this 
is so important to us. But I trust the majority of this Congress knows 
what we are talking about.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Before I recognize my final speaker to close, Mr. Chairman, let me 
just point out if it is about the bottom line, it is about making sure 
USDA inspectors inspect the American food chain and not foreign food 
chains.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding me time, and I appreciate his leadership, as well as the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) and the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  I want to remind my colleagues that this particular amendment, which 
is a funding limitation, however, is still very similar to an amendment 
that the House voted on shortly before we broke before the Memorial Day 
district work period. That particular amendment passed in an 
overwhelming fashion and in a bipartisan fashion. So this is truly 
bipartisan when it comes to recognizing how valuable the horse is to 
this country and what a symbol it is of our freedom and how important 
it is to recognize this truly American icon.
  When Americans think of the horse, I do not believe they think of it 
in terms of foreign cuisine on the tables of countries around the 
European area.
  This amendment has invoked a lot of emotion and misinformation. The 
opposition has said that this will increase the abuse of horses and 
horses running wild out West. Such statements are not true.
  Here are the facts. Each year some 65,000 horses are slaughtered in 
this country for human consumption in Europe and Asia where they are 
sold in restaurants as a delicacy. Another 30,000 are trucked to Canada 
and Mexico for slaughter. This amendment will end that slaughter of 
American horses for human consumption overseas.
  Slaughter is not the same as humane euthanasia administered by a 
veterinarian in a very controlled environment. Euthanasia of horses is 
administered by legal injection, whereas slaughtered is administered by 
unskilled, untrained workers using the captive bolt. Many times this is 
administered improperly, causing unnecessary pain and suffering before 
death.
  Passage of this amendment will not cause an overpopulation of horses. 
Each year 690,000 horses die in the U.S. many of which are euthanized 
by a licensed veterinarian. Slaughtered horses represent only 1 percent 
of horses that die each year. This would not result in an 
overpopulation of horses as some suggest.
  There are alternatives available. Americans do not profit from 
slaughtering horses. This is an export-driven market. Foreigners eat 
our horses and foreign companies make money, and we should stop looking 
at it in that perspective and start looking at it in the American 
perspective.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) 
will be postponed.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
King of Iowa) having assumed the chair, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, Chairman 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
2744) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________