[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 96 (Tuesday, July 13, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H5552-H5573]
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, 2005
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 710 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 4766.
{time} 1110
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4766) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Bass in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole House rose on Monday,
July 12, 2004, all time for general debate had expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
The amendment printed in House Report 108-591 may be offered only by
a Member designated in the report and, pursuant to the order of the
House of today, may be offered anytime in the reading of the bill,
shall be considered read, debatable for the time specified in the
report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment.
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 of the Congressional Record. Those
amendments will be considered read.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 4766
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,
2005, and for other purposes, namely:
TITLE I
AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS
Production, Processing, and Marketing
Office of the Secretary
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary of
Agriculture, $5,185,000: 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.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Hyde
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Hyde:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. 759. Section 501 of the Agricultural Trade Development
and Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1737) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting ``Doug Bereuter
and'' before ``John Ogonowski''; and
(2) in the heading, by inserting ``DOUG BEREUTER AND''
before ``JOHN OGONOWSKI''.
Modification to Amendment Offered by Mr. Hyde
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
made in order by the rule be modified in the form at the desk.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
Modification to amendment offered by Mr. Hyde:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. 759. Section 501 of the Agricultural Trade Development
and Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1737) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting ``and Doug
Bereuter'' after ``John Ogonowski''; and
(2) in the heading, by inserting ``AND DOUG BEREUTER AND''
after ``JOHN OGONOWSKI''.
Mr. HYDE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the modification be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Illinois?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 710, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) each
will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment to the Agricultural
Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954.
Mr. Chairman, this is to honor our retiring colleague, the gentleman
from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), by adding his name to the formal title to
the Farmer-to-Farmer title. The gentleman's tireless efforts to
implement the John Ogonowski Farmer-to-Farmer Program have been a
driving force in making this a successful program. As the gentleman
from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) retires from Congress after 26 years of
service, and 21 years on the Committee on International Relations, I
ask that we express our admiration in
[[Page H5553]]
a bipartisan manner by recognizing his strong support for this
outstanding program.
Bob Lagormarsino and Jerry Solomon and I accompanied the gentleman on
the memorable trip to El Salvador and Guatemala in the 1980s which
inspired his work in this crucial area. He saw the positive impact that
a small group of farmers from his home State of Nebraska had on the
local Salvadoran farmers and wanted to find a way to expand this
limited program into a much larger project.
Upon returning to the United States, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr.
Bereuter) sought a way to ensure this program could reach a broader
population in need. He led the effort to fund the Farmer-to-Farmer Aid
Program, which was a small part of the Foreign Assistance Act. His
efforts came to fruition in the 1985 farm bill, in which Congress
allocated funds from the Food For Peace program towards the Farmer-to-
Farmer program.
The gentleman's faith in the power of American volunteerism led to
the implementation of this very successful program which promotes
sustainable development by helping the most impoverished people in
foreign countries learn how to help themselves. The goal of the Farmer-
to-Farmer program is to ``enhance the potential for increases in food
processing, production and marketing, which in turn stimulates private
enterprise and democratic institutions.''
{time} 1115
This program has directly benefited approximately 1 million farmer
families and provided hands-on training to over 80,000 people in over
80 countries.
Through the Farmer-to-Farmer program, U.S. leadership is demonstrated
throughout the world by ordinary Americans who volunteer their time and
share their talents and technical expertise.
I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment
to recognize our distinguished colleague Doug Bereuter's significant
contribution to American foreign policy by adding his name to the title
of this most important program.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman
Hyde) for the time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to honor our
colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
When the Founding Fathers envisioned a new Nation based on self-
government, they wrote many rules into our Constitution. Many things
were formally laid out, but many assumptions were left unsaid. One of
the assumptions were that among the representatives chosen would be
people who were consensus and coalition builders, people whose highest
allegiance was not to the political party but to country. It is on the
backs of such leaders that self-government depends.
Doug Bereuter is an embodiment of the kind of leader our Founding
Fathers assumed that would move our country forward.
I have worked with the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), as I
called him as a staff member and as a Member, for 21 years. I call him
a friend, but I admire him more.
Forty years ago, Republican Senator Arthur Vandenberg joined with
Democratic President Harry Truman to start the Marshall Plan. Many
Members of Congress objected to a spending program overseas, but
Senator Vandenberg said, ``Partnership should end at the water's
edge.''
In his service on the Committee on International Relations and the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, no Member of Congress
embraced that ideal more than Doug Bereuter.
I worked closely with him on food assistance programs for North
Korean children. Despite a formal state of war between our two
countries, Doug Bereuter was our leader, championing a humanitarian
vision where, as Ronald Reagan said, ``A hungry child knows no
politics.''
Doug pioneered leadership for the P.L. 480 program and for the
Farmer-to-Farmer programs. These programs fed the hungry and
represented the highest ideals of the American people.
We honor Doug Bereuter today. I want to also mention his work with
the intelligence community to boost foreign language instruction by the
U.S. government. No action will boost the long-term defenses of the
U.S. more than the Bereuter foreign language initiative.
We wish the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) well as the new
head of the Asia Foundation and urge the adoption of the amendment as a
way to honor a real American and someone totally committed to the
humanitarian vision of the United States overseas.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, we would like to rise in support of the Hyde amendment
renaming the Farmer-to-Farmer program so that that program includes the
name of our dear colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter),
and I want to thank the chairman for offering this important amendment
to our bill this year.
We rise to accept the amendment and again thank and compliment the
gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for his cooperation in not only
championing this amendment but working to be sure that Mr. Bereuter's
contributions are recognized, along with those of John Ogonowski, the
pilot of American Airlines flight 11 that tragically crashed into the
World Trade Tower on 9/11, for whom the program was named 3 years ago.
Mr. Ogonowski had worked so diligently with farmers and others in
Massachusetts, and so to have his name and Mr. Bereuter's name
associated in perpetuity on this program I think really elevates it to
a level that more fully expresses the real goodness of our country. We
share the appreciation of the work that the gentleman from Nebraska
(Mr. Bereuter) has done to support and expand the Farmer-to-Farmer
program.
I know that the best way to combat terrorism and misunderstanding is
to have programs like Farmer-to-Farmer that link our producers to those
of other nations, forming lifelong friendships and understandings. If
we look at so many of the societies in which we currently are
confronting difficulty, whether it is Pakistan or Afghanistan, other -
stan countries that had been part of the former Soviet Union, whether
we talk about Africa and the starving people of so many of those
nations, this Farmer-to-Farmer program is extraordinarily important. It
puts the best face of America forward.
So in taking this time today, again, I want to compliment the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). Let me also thank the gentleman
from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for his enormous contributions to
agriculture while a Member of this House but also the future work he
will be doing with the Asia Foundation. The needs of the Pacific and
the islands of the Pacific and so many of the issues that he will
confront in that new capacity will be enlightened by the accomplishment
he demonstrated here.
We are very pleased to support this amendment and thank the gentleman
from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for his leadership on this, along with so
many other issues important to our Nation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, too.
I can think of no better person for whom this program should be named.
I have known Doug Bereuter for many, many years, really starting back
when he first began his service in the Congress, and I know of him
really as a very great and special person, a man who has always put
principle above popularity, and that is a very rare characteristic
among very few people.
I had the good fortune of traveling with Doug recently on a NATO/
British-American parliamentary group meeting, and I was struck then, as
I have been struck so many times, in listening to him speak, about the
incredible knowledge and wisdom that he has through the years that he
has spent on the Committee on International Relations and the fact that
in every single instance he, too, put principle first, and his wisdom
is something that we will sorely miss in this Congress.
[[Page H5554]]
I want to congratulate him on his new endeavors but also tell him
that he has set a very high standard for a Member of Congress, and I
hope that we can all aspire to reach the same level that he has.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. EMERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and
also rise in strong support of this amendment.
I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for
offering it, and I want to congratulate the gentleman from Nebraska
(Mr. Bereuter) for 26 years of service to the Congress and for his
leadership on this program.
I think it is very, very appropriate that we change the name of the
program to add his distinguished name for hereafter, and I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy
in permitting me to speak on this; and I, too, rise in support of the
amendment. I think it exemplifies the type of leadership we have had on
our committee. I appreciate the chairman of the Committee on
International Relations bringing it forward.
Doug Bereuter, I mentioned earlier on the floor during a special
order this morning, what a difference he has made for me and all who
serve with him. This identifies Doug as being a legislator, with his
fingerprints on a wide variety of legislation.
I am pleased that we have had items brought forward that enshrine his
name on legislation and on programs. I hope that we will be mindful of
the many other contributions that he has made that few know about
unless they had the pleasure of serving with him and watching him in
action. I think it is a testimony to his insight, his patience and his
hard work that he has been able to inspire this confidence on both
sides of the aisle.
I am pleased that we have this as an additional expression of our
support as he moves forward into a new career.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, we strongly support this amendment, and I
yield back our remaining time.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time having expired, the question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
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), $10,810,000.
national appeals division
For necessary expenses of the National Appeals Division,
$14,526,000.
Office of Budget and Program Analysis
For necessary expenses of the Office of Budget and Program
Analysis, $8,246,000.
Homeland Security Staff
For necessary expenses of the Homeland Security Staff,
$508,000.
Office of the Chief Information Officer
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief
Information Officer, $15,608,000.
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, $120,957,000, 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. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Bonilla:
In title I, under the heading ``COMMON COMPUTING
ENVIRONMENT'', insert after the dollar amount the following:
``(decreased by $120,957,000)''.
In title I, under the heading ``FARM SERVICE AGENCY,
SALARIES AND EXPENSES'', insert after the dollar amount the
following ``(increased by $52,873,606)''.
In title II, under the heading ``NATURAL RESOURCES
CONSERVATION SERVICE, CONSERVATION OPERATIONS'', insert after
the first dollar amount the following: ``increased by
$40,458,661''.
In title III, under the heading ``RURAL DEVELOPMENT,
SALARIES AND EXPENSES'', insert after the first dollar amount
the following: increased by $27,624,733''.
Mr. BONILLA (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
Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a simple amendment that
would transfer money from the Common Computing Environment, an amount
that totals $120,957,000, and would put that into a lot of services
that are very vital to communities, especially rural communities out in
the heartland.
It would put $52,873,606 into the Farm Service Agency salaries and
expenses. It would also put $40,458,661 into the Natural Resources
Conservation Service and $27,624,733 into Rural Development salaries
and expenses.
Now, to explain a little further, this amendment would provide funds
to a lot of county-based agencies that deliver critical farm programs,
economic development in rural areas and the delivery of conservation
technical assistance.
The Farm Service Agency delivers farm credit programs to all farmers
and ranchers across America.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service delivers conservation
technical assistance to producers all across the country.
The Rural Development is very critical to many Members who have these
smaller towns and communities in their congressional areas, providing
economic opportunity and housing opportunities to Americans from border
to border and from coast to coast.
This is a good amendment, and again, it gets money in the people's
hands that truly need it out there. At this time, I would encourage all
Members to support this amendment.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the
amendment offered by our good chairman.
This essentially is an effort to transfer funds from the Executive
Office of the Secretary and the Common Computing Environment to
different funds inside of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in
operational agencies. I think it is important to point out to the
membership, first of all, this is a lot of money, and it is well over
$100 million.
This current fiscal year we are spending about $118 million on the
Common Computing Environment. Over the years we have increased these
accounts, and this year, in fact, within the budget itself there is
$2,372,000 in appropriated funds being proposed over last year.
The Chairman's amendment would take those dollars and farm them out
to the Farm Service Agency, the NRCS, the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, and Rural Development as line items I guess in
those accounts, although it is a little unclear to me how we would
track this.
1130
But the point is, this is an account that has been rising within the
executive office of the Secretary herself. I think it is important for
us to keep a clear eye on how these funds are being expended.
In addition to that, there are several amendments that Members are
offering today that have been cleared and filed in proper time that
would take their funds from this particular account. And so the net
effect of adoption of this amendment would be to force the Members who
wish to offer amendments to find alternative offsets, and also to kind
of lose the focus that we currently have on common computing
environment in a separate account in the Secretary's office by
diverting it to these many places in the agency.
So I assume that the gentleman is doing this for good reasons. But
the point is I think we would have a lessening of clarity on where
these funds are actually being expended by the
[[Page H5555]]
agencies. In past years, we have had trouble with this account in
really following how the administrations are spending these dollars. As
we thought they were doing a little better job, we gave them additional
funds.
But I really do not see the burning need for this amendment right
now. There are increases in this account; and, therefore, I think in
view of the negative effect it will also have on other amendments being
offered here today, I would rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise
in support of this amendment.
Anyone who deals on the local level with the NRCS understands how the
staffing shortages, the need for more funds at the local level are so
absolutely critical to be able to handle the programs that are so
important to farmers today. This is where the rubber meets the road.
This is where people who actually do the work are in contact with the
farmers themselves, who do all the work out in the fields. This is
extremely important that we do have those funds available to make sure
that we are adequately staffed.
Also, when we look at rural development, economic development, it is
a critical issue for us to make sure that we have the resources
available out in the country to be able to help small businesses, to be
able to help our rural communities grow and prosper. So I think this
amendment is very, very important; and I certainly rise in support.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to comment briefly at least on
the previous amendment offered by the distinguished gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde). I was unaware it was up at this time. I am very
grateful to the chairman, Mr. Hyde, to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Bonilla), and to the ranking minority member, the gentlewoman from Ohio
(Ms. Kaptur). I happened to see the gentlewoman from Missouri
commenting with my name, and that is the only reason that I noticed
what was being considered on the floor.
In any case, I thank them and apparently other Members, for their
kind comments. Mr. Chairman, just a word of history because it involves
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). I was on a four-member CODEL to
El Salvador and Guatemala with the former distinguished Member from
California Mr. Lagormarsino, the gentleman from New York, the late
Jerry Solomon, and the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Hyde).
War-torn El Salvador at the time was in the middle of a land reform
program. Unfortunately; it was not working, and one element that was a
part of the program was called the ``Land For the Tiller Program.'' I
came back convinced that if I could take 40 farmers from my district in
to the area during the middle of the winter for about 6 weeks and they
could turn around some of those efforts and make them successful,
because there was for example, very little knowledge of poultry or
swine husbandry.
To my surprise, the Farmer-to-Farmer program had been authorized some
years earlier, but never funded. So with a long effort, working with
Peter McPherson, the former administrator of USAID, I convinced them,
finally, that they did not have to pay volunteers, and the program
could be started. So with a relatively small amount of money, initially
just one-tenth of 1 percent of the CCC program, those volunteers'
transportation was paid; they had a sponsoring organization in the
foreign country that either made it successful or less than successful,
depending on the local effort.
Mr. Chairman, I was recently over at USAID about a month ago, and
they have just sent their 10,000th volunteer on the Farmer-to-Farmer
program. These are active or retired farmers--and I am also including
the farm wife, because in many cases she is the person that goes
overseas. These volunteers also are people who are at our land grant
institutions as professors or retired professors. They have worked now
on every continent.
Then, when the Soviet Union disintegrated, the Reagan administration
sent a Cabinet team to Russia, to see if assistance could be offered to
Russia and the other CIS countries. They discovered the Farmer-to-
Farmer program, and it was accelerated dramatically.
So we have had many Americans who have now gone on volunteer missions
in four different continents. They have come through my office from
time to time, and for them, in many cases, they told me it was the best
experience of their lifetime. America is a wealthy country, but the
area where we have our greatest riches probably is in talented people
who are willing to volunteer their time.
So I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for his amendment
and trace the reason for it back to our visit there. It was also the
time when I first became interested in something called FINCA, which
was a microenterprise experiment in the Andean countries. And I later
brought them to the Hill so the other Members could be exposed to it.
But many people, Mr. Gilman, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, and also
Members of the Committee on Appropriations also know about the
microenterprise program; and they have been very good to it. Mr.
Chairman, the Farmer-to-Farmer is a program that I think will be quite
successful in the years to come because it relies on American
volunteerism.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the current amendment before
us. I commend the gentleman from Texas for trying to take all of the
money from Common Computer Environment, but what he is doing is he is
taking and stripping the amount of money, and we are talking about $120
some million, and distributing it into three accounts.
Mr. Chairman, this precludes an amendment that I would have been able
to have brought up today that deals with civil rights. Civil rights is
important to a lot of us as we look at what is going on in our country.
We have an opportunity to put in additional funding for the Hispanic-
serving institutes, we have opportunities for monies to go for tribal
expansion grants, and then we have an opportunity to provide money for
socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. The Bonilla amendment
would preclude the ability for me or others to submit their amendments
to a bill that is very much needed in terms of providing service.
When we look at civil rights, we look at Martin Luther King, who
fought for many individuals in terms of the civil rights movement and
opportunities for people, minorities and disadvantaged, to file their
complaints. We have numerous complaints throughout the Nation.
Within the Hispanic community, we currently have 16 percent of the
total population of the United States, including Puerto Rico with 16
percent, which makes up about 42 million people; yet we would be
denying them an opportunity when it comes to civil rights, especially
as we look at Hispanic-serving institutes right now where we have
approximately 350 colleges and universities and continue to grow in the
enrollment of colleges and universities of individuals who want to get
into the universities.
When we look at the National Congress of American Indians supporting
the legislation, there are 250 tribal governments that are saying,
look, we want an equal opportunity in terms of justice, equality, and
civil rights. We have an opportunity to make sure that rural
communities and others obtain the kind of funding necessary and that
there is someone to serve them when there are complaints. There are
more and more people filing civil rights complaints.
If we take this money totally out, we would not be able to provide
the kind of services that are needed. And while I do appreciate the
support of the chairman 2 years ago, when he did support legislation
that did approve additional funding, as we look at the growth and
expansion of the population, we need additional funding. Currently,
Hispanic-serving colleges and universities are underfunded by about 75
percent. We are continuing to grow. We need the funding there, Mr.
Chairman.
I hope the gentleman from Texas will reconsider and allow the
additional amendments, at least some of these dollars, in a bipartisan
way. Allowing
[[Page H5556]]
other individuals to submit their amendments would say we truly
represent the American Dream. Allowing us to put in an amendment would
put service back to our constituents, back to people who very much need
it.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words in favor of the amendment.
This is a very good amendment. I am surprised anybody would come to
the floor and be against this amendment. This is an amendment that
provides the money to take care of the farmers and ranchers and people
that do the hard work. This is the amendment that people have been
clamoring for for a long time, more money on the ground for the up-
front office workers that do the work, that work with the farmers, that
provide the service to people, that help them fill out their forms and
do the work that needs to be done.
We hear year in and year out from our farmers that we do not have
enough staff, there are not enough people there, there are long lines,
the forms cannot get filled out, we do not have enough people to advise
us. I cannot think of any reason to be against this amendment.
These are the service workers that help our farmers and ranchers to
do the work required by us and required by the USDA to fill all the
forms that need to be filled out, to make sure all the reports are
done. We require a lot of paperwork, USDA requires a lot of paperwork;
and our farmers and ranchers deserve to have the kind of professional
staff that this amendment provides for.
So I say to those people who represent farmers and ranchers all
around the country, if you want your farmers and ranchers to have the
expert professional people to help them do the things, to do the work,
to fill out the forms that need to be done, you ought to be supporting
this amendment.
Every year our farmers come to us and say, there just is not enough
staffing. We need more people. In some instances, we have allowed for
part-time people to come in. We have allowed for temporary people to
come in. This, though, is the kind of opportunity that provides the
money.
I compliment the chairman, and I would surely hope that the ranking
member would reconsider her position on this, given the fact that
reallocating of money to help the people that are out there doing the
hard work of growing the fruits and vegetables, and doing the hard work
providing the food and fiber for our country are going to have the
professional staff.
So I compliment the chairman for doing this, and I say to all Members
who may be listening to this debate on this amendment, this is
leadership on the part of the chairman of this subcommittee to say to
our farmers and ranchers, the money is going to be there for the
professional staff to do all the things that need to be done that we
require in Congress and USDA requires, and that we hear year in and
year out from our farmers, particularly from the producers out in the
area, certainly in Illinois and the 20 counties I represent, I hear
from them every year that we do not have enough staff in our offices to
do the things you are requiring us to do.
So great leadership on the part of the chairman here to reallocate
the money that needs to be used so that we can hire the people and they
can help our farmers and ranchers. I ask all Members who hear from
their farmers and ranchers each year to support this amendment. It is a
good amendment, and I appreciate the leadership of the chairman.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the gentlewoman from Ohio
striking the requisite number of words for a second time?
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object, and ask for
a clarification as to the nature of why the gentlewoman needs this
unanimous consent?
The CHAIRMAN. A Member can only strike the last word once on a given
paragraph.
Does the gentleman continue to object.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Ohio?
There was no objection.
{time} 1145
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I did want to respond to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. LaHood), a respected member of our subcommittee, to say
that one of our problems in this bill is that, because it is under what
we spent last year, many accounts have been scraped. We have been
trying to find dollars to do several things in the bill. The Common
Computing Environment has a lot of money. This year we are proposing
$120 million, an amount over last year. But there are other underfunded
programs in the bill extraordinarily important to farmers.
For example, in the important area of bioenergy, the administration
wants to cut the development of renewable fuels. We have a new title in
the farm bill to create a new market in this country for fuels. One of
the amendments that will be offered would take a few dollars out of
this common computing account and just let that account be level with
this year's expenditures which is $23 million. It's not a lot of money
in terms of the full bill. But nonetheless to try to really help our
farmers bring up a new industry, it amounts to real dollars. This is
money not going to a government agency. It is going directly to farmers
to bring up a new source of power in our Nation, new sources of power
based in agriculture.
One of the other amendments, and other Members will speak to this,
has to do with the civil rights portions of this bill which are
underfunded. This account has over $120 million in it.
The third area in which we would hope to take a few dollars out of
these accounts are the Farmers Market Promotion Program, a program that
was authorized in the new farm bill but has zero dollars now. Farmers
out there all around this country are trying to sell their product
directly to consumers. We have had so many requests from Members to
assist with Farmers' Market Development. We have been unable to meet
those requests. For the first time, with this amendment, we would
provide funds in a newly authorized program in the farm bill.
So, yes, we have to make choices; and we are trying to help all
titles of the farm bill as best we can. These dollars, by being
diverted to agencies that already have billions of dollars, well, I
really would question our ability to monitor those expenditures. And,
yes, farmers are going into these farm service agencies and they are
not being served, but we have had these accounts plused up over $100
million for computers for years and years and years.
One of the points I would have, since we have this computing account
in the Secretary's office, we can have better oversight so we can see
whether or not they are putting these computers in the farm service
agencies. But the truth is we do not have enough money in any account
to do everything that needs to be done. I respect what the gentleman is
saying, but we have to try to do more with less in every single one of
the accounts that we are supposed to fund.
I would urge my colleagues to think about this vote because it harms
other programs in the bill that are extraordinarily important and are
serving our farmers directly. We still maintain hundreds, tens of
thousands of dollars, millions of dollars in this account to help with
the computing environment. I did want to respond to that.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, as the ranking member, the gentlewoman
knows our farmers and ranchers and the producers come to us every year
with the common complaint, we don't have enough people in these local
offices to help us. We have to set priorities.
Ms. KAPTUR. I would reclaim my time and say to the gentleman that the
overall bill does not have enough money. We have to try to put dollars
in all the accounts as best we can. I agree with the gentleman there is
not enough money in the overall allocation, but that does not mean we
have to rob all accounts just to serve one purpose. We have to use
these dollars broadly and do the best we can with an inadequate
allocation.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
[[Page H5557]]
Mr. Chairman, I join the ranking member on the committee in
opposition to the amendment basically because the gentleman from
California (Mr. Baca), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and
myself would not be allowed if the amendment passes to introduce our
amendment which basically would do three things:
First of all, it would increase the civil rights enforcement moneys
for the Office of the Secretary. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has
clearly been called the last plantation. Because of that, Mr. Chairman,
many of the discriminations for black farmers and other individuals
coming out of USDA, we could address it with more money.
In addition to this, the 2501 program would be increased so that
socially disadvantaged farmers could take advantage of USDA programs.
If this amendment is passed, we would not be able to offer the increase
in the program.
But, thirdly, Mr. Chairman, the tribal extension grants for Hispanic-
serving institutions, we could not increase that money. I know that the
chairman does not want to hurt those institutions, but this is an
opportunity, if this amendment is allowed to be offered and somehow we
can reach some agreement, that we could help those Hispanic-serving
institutions, also.
Reluctantly I rise in opposition to the amendment, because another
amendment that we think would be as important to a tremendous number of
people could not be offered.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Bonilla amendment and believe
that the chairman of the committee is moving in the right direction.
The Common Computing Environment program I think does render very
valuable technical assistance, but I understand the pressures that we
are under to try to get money out on the local level to the farmers.
One of the things that has always disturbed me as a Member of
Congress is when we allocate money for anything, military, education,
health care, whatever, it is astounding the amount of the dollars that
stay in Washington, D.C. As I drive around this beautiful city, I do
not see too many farmers. I see a lot of monuments and some lakes and
some parks, but I do not see many corn fields or cow pastures or hog
pens. Yet if we support the Bonilla amendment, we are pushing the
dollars out of town towards those agencies, the Farm Service Agency,
the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Rural Development
Agency, towards the farmer, towards the local people.
It is interesting, as somebody who represents rural southeast Georgia
with 29 different counties in it, as I go around visiting my farmers
and those in the agriculture community and the agriculture family, they
speak highly of these agencies and the work that they do. The rural
development folks, they do all kinds of housing opportunities in my
area and some other much-needed projects that we think are very
important for economic development in the smaller towns. The Natural
Resources Conservation Service is very important for erosion control
and best cultivation practices and good technical assistance to the
farmers. Of course, the Farm Service Agency delivers the farm credit
program to farmers all over the country.
But what I like best about these folks is they are Federal
Government, USDA employees, 100 percent on the USDA salary, but they
answer 100 percent to the farmers back home in Bacon County and in
Appling County and in Coffee County, the folks who I am trying to serve
and represent in Washington. That is the same people that these
agencies are serving.
As the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) said earlier today, these
are the people that our farmers ask for assistance from; and they
really do not ask for more money in the USDA bureaucracy as much as
getting it back home to rural Texas, rural Illinois, rural Iowa, rural
Georgia and so forth.
I stand in strong support of the Bonilla amendment and hope that our
colleagues give it a majority.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Common Computing Environment
system. There are a lot of folks making a lot of great speeches today,
and I agree with all of them. I agree with the gentleman from
California (Mr. Baca). I agree with the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Thompson) and the concerns and the needs there. I agree with the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) and his statement. I agreed with
the chairman and what he is saying.
But what I am afraid of is that we are about to do something that is
going to do more damage to all of our farmers and all of our needs and
the efficiency of the delivery of these programs by once again using
the Common Computer Environmental systems as a cash cow.
USDA began modernization and streamlining with the USDA
Reauthorization Act of 1994 signed by the President, October 13, 1994.
Since then we have made some progress. USDA field agencies still rely,
though, on outdated information technology. Basically, what we were
saying in 1994 to USDA, start cooperating and working together. Have
FSA, NRCS and Rural Development start looking at one-stop shopping,
start looking at putting their computer systems together, start doing
those things that would allow them to operate efficiently and save
money for our appropriators and get the job done better.
We have got a ways to go. But if we deny them the technology to do
it, we will never get there.
I want to give the Members a little story about how using modern
information technology can benefit not only producers in the delivery
of programs and services but can save the taxpayers millions of dollars
of waste in eliminating waste, fraud and abuse in the delivery of
Federal assistance.
In 2000, the Committee on Agriculture included a provision in the
crop insurance reform bill it was considering. The bill instructed the
Secretary of Agriculture to develop and implement a coordinated plan
for the Risk Management Agency and the Farm Service Agency to reconcile
all relevant information received by RMA and FSA from a producer who
obtains crop insurance. The agencies were to reconcile such producer-
derived information on at least an annual basis to identify and address
any discrepancies.
We encouraged the Secretary to use an outside entity that had
expertise in information technologies known as data mining and data
warehousing and other available information technologies to administer
the program. It took over a year to implement the provisions, with USDA
kicking and screaming all the way. In fact, only RMA ultimately entered
into the agreement with Tarleton and Planning Systems Incorporated to
apply data mining and data warehousing to its data in an attempt to
detect fraudulent practices in the multiperil crop insurance program.
FSA refused to share its producer data.
We talk about cutting waste, fraud and abuse from Federal programs
all the time. In 4 short years and an approximately $20 million
investment by this body, RMA estimates it has saved American taxpayers
$250 million in claims not filed by detecting schemes to file bogus
insurance claims losses. Technology can do the job if we allow it to do
it. What more could we accomplish if we required all of USDA to use
modern technology and by sharing information to ensure that the
programs it administers and services it delivers is done in an
effective and efficient manner?
If we are serious about eliminating waste, fraud and abuse from
government programs, I suggest we fully fund USDA's Common Computing
Environment.
I recognize and I saw all of the amendments that my colleagues were
bringing today, each one of which is designed to get into this
particular, they believe, cash cow, for doing some very good and
important things. But I think we become considerably shortsighted if we
do not recognize that if we are truly to deliver the services to our
producers that the conservation, with technical assistance, if we are
truly to do those things that we all want to do, the best place to
start is by making sure that the USDA Reorganization Act of 1994 is
fully implemented by demanding USDA do it, but at the same time not
shortchange them on the technology they will need in order to do it.
That is my concern today.
[[Page H5558]]
I guess basically I am rising in opposition to all of the amendments
until someone can show me that taking money from the computers is a
better investment. I would much rather continue to recognize we have a
budget problem, not an appropriations problem. I recognize what the
chairman is attempting to do with this amendment, but I believe it is
not in the best long-term interest of USDA and the people we serve, the
producers and consumers of America.
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Numerous reports
and commissions have documented the civil rights problems at USDA. For
those who might not be aware of this history, let me give the Members a
brief overview.
In 1965, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights found discrimination in
USDA program delivery and in USDA treatment of minority employees.
In 1970, a USDA employees focus group report concluded the agency was
insensitive to the issues regarding equal opportunity and civil rights.
In 1982, the Civil Rights Commission found that USDA's Farmers Home
Administration had failed to place adequate emphasis on dealing with
the crisis facing black farmers and saw indications that the agency may
be involved in the very kind of racial discrimination that it should be
seeking to correct.
In 1990, the Committee on Government Operations of the United States
House of Representatives found that Farmers Home Administration
practices were one of the key causes of the drastic decline in black
farmer ownership.
In 1997 and 1998, CRAT, a special team within the USDA, found
systemic discrimination in employment and farm assistance programs.
{time} 1200
In 1998 the Congress passed a measure which helped African American
farmers pursue legal claims against the USDA. In 1999 a Federal court
entered a consent decree which allowed many black farmers to recover
damages for the years of discrimination they faced at the hands of the
USDA.
Let me say to the Members, given this sad and sorry history, I must
oppose this amendment on that note, to say that we need to have
technical assistance, but we need to look at what we are doing. And
just to say we are going to do something that really is not going to
accomplish anything is not the way to go. So on that note I must oppose
the amendment.
Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the chairman's
amendment and in support of the Common Computing Environment and the
associated systems.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) cited many of the benefits of
the Common Computing Environment not only to the Department of
Agriculture but to the many farmers and ranchers that the Department of
Agriculture seeks to serve.
I want to bring to the attention of the House another very important
function of the Common Computing Environment efforts, and that is a new
technology or at least a new application of a technology which has been
with us for about 30 or 40 years, and that is satellite imaging in
support of forest and farmland use.
There is a very important effort under way to categorize farmland and
to image farmland all across the United States. It serves many
important purposes. One of them is to help us figure out the categories
of different farmland and the erosion of that farmland, and it helps
farmers in the end by protecting their most basic asset, the land. It
also helps our forests because it helps us assess forest health. It
helps us assess the buildup of unwanted or unnecessary fuel stocks in
our forests to avert forest fires, and it also helps assess
infestations by insects and other pests so that we can better assess
the health of our forest stock.
So I just want to point out that, as these amendments come up,
ranging from the chairman's amendment, which makes a fairly substantial
cut, to other amendments which make smaller cuts in the Common
Computing Environment budget, I, for one, will have to choose very
carefully between those amendments which serve very crucial public
purposes such as eliminating decades' old discrimination by various
Federal agencies and programs and other, perhaps less compelling,
causes to cut into the Common Computing Environment budget.
And, again, I do want to point out that in addition to the many
important purposes that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) pointed
out that we in Oregon, we who have a very thorough land use planning
system, we depend on data in order to maintain our categories of farm
and forest land, of urban reserve, of urban land and potential urban
land, and there is nothing quite as important as having some of the
satellite imagery which would also be unfortunately adversely affected
by the chairman's amendment. So I do rise in reluctant opposition to
the chairman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to this paragraph?
If not, 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, $5,811,000: 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 a report on the Department's
contracting out policies, including agency budgets for
contracting out.
Working Capital Fund
For the acquisition of disaster recovery and continuity of
operations technology of the National Finance Center's data,
$12,850,000, to remain available until expended.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, $803,000.
Point of Order
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order
against the second provision under the heading ``Office of the Chief
Financial Officer,'' beginning with the colon on page 3, line 25,
throughout on page 4, line 6. This provision violates clause 2(b) of
House rule XXI.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Ms. KAPTUR. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman may inquire.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, did we not read past that provision?
The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.
Is there objection to returning to that point in the reading to
entertain a point of order against the cited provision?
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, we raise objection to that.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
This is the second time this has happened. Right off the floor I was
assured that this would come up after a vote on the gentlewoman from
Ohio's (Ms. Kaptur) amendment. I stood here seeking recognition as I
came on to the floor as the Clerk was reading other sections. I was not
recognized. This is the second time I have been let down by the
Committee on Appropriations when they knew I had a point of order and
tried to give me time periods.
In fact, I, in talking to the staff this morning, said maybe I should
just stay on the floor. No. The last time this occurred, the minority
was generous enough to allow us to go back and raise that provision. I
would ask for the same courtesy here, or I will stand up today and
object to every single unanimous consent.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman should be assured that there
was absolutely no intent on the majority's part to interfere with the
gentleman's issue that we expected him to raise today. So I just hope
the gentleman understands that clearly, and the majority is not
objecting to our returning to this portion of the bill. The objection
was raised by the minority.
[[Page H5559]]
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I just
want to say that I was off the floor. I walked on the floor, was
seeking recognition. The Clerk continued to read as I got up here. I
continued to request recognition.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we be able to return to
this section.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Virginia?
Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Ms. KAPTUR. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Oregon yield for the
parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. WU. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Ohio may inquire.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, could the Chair please explain what is
occurring here? We raised objection to the gentleman, who was not on
the floor when we read through his section, and we raised objection to
that. Why is the gentleman being allowed to proceed?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman is
incorrect. It was my time. I was on the floor.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) controls the time.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I just asked in comity if
she would allow me to make the point of order that we are entitled to
do under the rules.
Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I am yielding to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, we raised objection to the gentleman's
desire to continue with this. He is raising it out of order.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. It is in order at any point to raise it,
and I will continue to raise it.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia has again asked for
unanimous consent to take his point of order out of order.
Ms. KAPTUR. We object to that, Mr. Chairman. He missed his
opportunity.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I am going to yield to the gentleman from Virginia, but I would like
to know why the gentlewoman from Ohio would object. Let him make his
point; then if they have the votes, knock it out. He was on the floor.
The gentleman was on the floor. He could not get to the microphone
because he thought there was going to be a vote on the gentleman from
Texas's (Mr. Bonilla) amendment. That is the point here. If she does
not like what he is going to say, stand up, but give him the right to
say it, not to object to it. That is a lousy way to treat a Member.
If somebody were doing that to you, you would have motions to adjourn
and motions to do this and that. The gentleman was on the floor. He
wants to make a point of order. Let him make his point. What is the
problem with doing that?
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LaHOOD. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, because he is proceeding out of order. We
have dozens of amendments, as the gentleman well knows.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, he was on the floor.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield,
he missed his opportunity as the bill was being read.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am going to say this:
I think the gentleman does have a right. He was on the floor. He could
not get to the microphone because he thought a vote would be called for
on the gentleman from Texas's (Mr. Bonilla) amendment.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LaHOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia to make his point.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I think it is interesting,
as we heard from the other side last week about tactics on this side
that were overbearing and the like, to see that given the opportunity
in this case to reciprocate and show some openness that they have
declined to do so. Nothing is surprising. But all I can say is that I
will object to their unanimous consent request and sit here.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I wonder if the
gentlewoman from Ohio would reconsider her objection.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LaHOOD. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, not at this time.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I could not understand the gentlewoman's
response. I wonder if the gentlewoman would consider giving the
opportunity to the gentleman from Virginia to speak on the part of the
bill that he wants to speak on.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LaHOOD. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood)
knows the rules of the House very well. The gentleman missed his
opportunity as the bill was being read.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LaHOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, let me ask the distinguished
chairman, will he, in light of what has transpired here, and I know
that he was not up to this previously, work with me to amend this
provision and make it appropriate in the conference or to ``X'' it out
altogether?
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LaHOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to work with the
gentleman on the issue that he is trying to raise here today.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, we
are willing to work with some reporting requirements that our committee
be included as part of the reporting as well as the appropriations
because we have jurisdiction. But we will work to get it out altogether
now because of their inability to compromise.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Baca
Mr. BACA. 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. Baca:
In title I, under the heading ``Common Computing
Environment'', insert after the dollar amount the following:
``(reduced by $3,500,000)''.
In title I, under the heading ``Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Civil Rights'', insert after the dollar amount
the following: ``(increased by $250,000)''.
In title I, under the headings ``Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service--T4research and
education activities'', insert after the first dollar amount,
and after the dollar amount relating to Hispanic-serving
Institutions, the following: ``(increased by $1,500,000)''.
In title I, under the headings ``Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service--extension
activities'', insert after the first dollar amount, and after
the dollar amount relating to Indian reservation agents, the
following: ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
In title I, under the headings ``Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service--outreach for
socially disadvantaged farmers'', insert after the dollar
amount the following: ``(increased by $750,000)''.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this
amendment.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of this amendment by the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Kildee), and myself to increase the funding for minority programs
in the USDA.
What we are asking for, basically, is $3.5 million in increase. The
purpose for the funding would be $250,000 for the Office of Assistant
Secretary of Civil Rights, $1 million for tribal expansion grants,
$750,000 for grants of socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, and
$1.5 million for Hispanic-serving institutes.
The amount is important because it provides funding to help civil
rights,
[[Page H5560]]
and I state again, civil rights programs, and other significant funding
to help minorities in the field of agriculture. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture has institutional problems that must be resolved, and this
is the way to resolve the problems that we have. The problems within
the USDA are so severe, the civil rights complaints have cost the
Federal Government nearly $1 million in settlements and awards.
Supporting the civil rights process and properly funding minority
initiatives are necessary to permanently end a history of
discrimination. I state a history of discrimination. We must rebuild
the trust in minority communities, and the USDA can do that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).
{time} 1215
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, let me take this opportunity, first of
all, to congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca), the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Kildee) on this particular amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues for this effort,
because there is no doubt that, despite the amendment before us by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), we still need to make sure that
those resources go to those communities, minority communities,
throughout this country, to make sure that discrimination does not
exist.
Although we have made great strides to end discrimination in this
country, it still persists in our produce organizations and the United
States Department of Agriculture. The USDA has a history of
discrimination in these programs, and the USDA has not provided enough
funding for minority initiatives that would level the playing field for
minority products.
So even if we do what we have been assigned based on the amendment
that was passed offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), we
have got to make sure that those resources reach those populations that
are in need; that despite the fact when we did have that staff there
and now we are trying to increase the staff, that still did not take
place.
Civil rights complaints from minority farmers have cost the USDA
nearly $1 billion in the form of settlements and awards and have the
potential to increase many times that amount. The Baca-Thomas-Kildee
amendment is a modest and needed step in reducing these costs and
eliminating discrimination against minorities.
With all the progress that our country has made, it is my hope that
the Congress continues to move in the right direction and support
funding for programs and farmers and ranchers throughout this country,
including black farmers and Hispanic farmers.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment in order
to do the right thing in this country.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this is just a modest
step in the right direction to deal with civil rights. As we look at
the support that we have right now, we have support from the national
Congress of American Indians that represents 250 tribal governments; we
have the support of the National Hispanic Legislation Agenda; we have
the support of the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities
and Rural Coalitions that represent somewhere around 350 colleges and
universities.
This is an important step in making sure that we deal with civil
rights and provide the funding for many individuals that have been
discriminated against in the past. Our population continues to grow. As
I stated earlier, we have 16 percent of the total population being
Hispanic right now, representing 42 million right now in the United
States, including Puerto Rico. We need to make sure that adequate
funding is there to provide civil rights and protection for individuals
and minorities or others who have filed a complaint, to make sure
farmers and others have an opportunity to progress and harvest their
farms in a timely manner. Without the civil rights complaint, it
becomes very difficult for individuals to be heard and their voices. We
need to make sure those voices are heard on an equal plane.
This funding will provide an opportunity for many individuals to
demonstrate their concerns when they have a complaint, and we need to
make sure that adequate funds are there through civil rights, through
the Department of Agriculture, through the USDA, to make sure that the
complaints are heard.
Mr. Chairman, I hope my colleague from Texas will support this
legislation, because I know he believes in civil rights, and civil
rights is important for all of us to look at funding.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk designated Amendment No. 9. The gentleman
actually offered an unnumbered amendment, which the Clerk will now
report.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Baca:
In title I, under the heading ``Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Civil Rights'', insert after the dollar amount
the following: ``(increased by $250,000)''.
In title I, under the headings ``Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service--research and
education activities'', insert after the first dollar amount,
and after the dollar amount relating to Hispanic-serving
Institutions, the following: ``(increased by $1,500,000)''.
In title I, under the headings ``Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service--extension
activities'', insert after the first dollar amount, and after
the dollar amount relating to Indian reservation agents, the
following: ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
In title I, under the headings ``Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service--outreach for
socially disadvantaged farmers'', insert after the dollar
amount the following: ``(increased by $750,000)''.
In title III, under the heading ``RURAL DEVELOPMENT--
Salaries and Expenses'', insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(reduced by $3,500,000)''.
Point of Order
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, speaking on my point of order, the
amendment offered by the gentleman from California proposes to amend
portions of the bill not yet read. The amendment may not be considered
en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment proposes to
increase the level of outlays in the bill.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca) wish to
be heard on the point of order?
Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I believe that we did offer the motion when
it was asked for during the proper period of time, so we are in
compliance with the rules of the House.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
To be considered en bloc pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI, an
amendment must not propose to increase levels of budget authority or
outlays in the bill. Because the amendment offered by the gentleman
from California proposes a net increase in the level of outlays in the
bill, as argued by the chairman of the subcommittee on appropriations,
it may not avail itself of clause 2(f) to address portions of the bill
not yet read.
Consequently, the amendment is not in order.
If there are no further amendments, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Office of Civil Rights
For necessary expenses of the Office of Civil Rights,
$19,452,000.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration
For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Administration, $669,000.
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, $165,883,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That not to exceed
5 percent of 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 new or replacement space 15 days after
notice thereof is transmitted to the Appropriations
Committees of both Houses of Congress.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Kaptur
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
[[Page H5561]]
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Kaptur:
In title I, under the heading ``Agriculture Building and
Facilities and Rental Payments--(including transfers of
funds)'', insert after the dollar amount the following:
``(reduced by $8,000,000)''.
In title III, under the heading ``Renewable Energy
Program'', insert after the dollar amount the following:
``(increased by $8,000,000)''.
Ms. KAPTUR (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 gentlewoman
from Ohio?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) has reserved a
point of order. The gentleman may now state his point of order.
Point of Order
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentlewoman
from Oregon proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read. The
amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI
because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the
bill.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Texas address the amendment
offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio in his point of order?
Mr. BONILLA. It is the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Ohio. I correct myself.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Ms. KAPTUR. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I do not quite understand the point of order. Our
amendment essentially is to bring to a level of $23 million the
accounts dealing with biofuels, renewable energy in the bill, which
equals this year's level of $23 million. We offset that with funds from
the Agriculture buildings and facilities and rental payments account.
My amendment does not touch any part of what the gentleman just read.
So, I am from Ohio, and I am offering this amendment. This is not an
amendment from Oregon.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Texas wish to be heard further?
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to move
America into the future. In the new farm bill, title IX provides for
the first time in American history an energy title. In the past fiscal
year, we provided $23 million in that account to help move America
forward, rooted deeply in the rural countryside. The bill before us
today actually cuts that account. This amendment merely restores $8
million to bring it up to equal what we are spending in this current
fiscal year of $23 million in the renewable fuels account, title IX of
the bill.
Members have to decide, are they for the future, or do they want to
continue to live in the past?
The funds that we use to make this account equal to what it is this
year come from the Agriculture buildings and facilities and rental
payments account. There is an $8 million offset within the bill.
I think it is important for members on every committee, regardless of
where we serve in this House, to help move America forward to energy
independence. How we convert this country is each of our
responsibilities. The United States currently imports two-thirds of the
petroleum we consume. By 2025 it is estimated that we will consume 75
percent of imported fuels in this country. We are at the dawn of a new
fuels age.
This chart that I am showing you here indicates that the largest
share of the fuels we import are from the Middle East. It is no
surprise to anybody here where we are at war right now. This is not
going to change unless each of us changes. In the most recent farm bill
that was passed, we made an effort to do that.
To cut the renewable fuels accounts at the beginning of this 21st
century makes absolutely no sense at all. All our amendment does is say
we made a good start last year. It was a small start, because only
about 1 percent of the fuels we consume in this country are renewable
fuels, like ethanol and biodiesel. Our amendment says we have made one
small step forward for humankind; let us take another small step with
this bill.
According to GAO, the United States has spent over $130 billion over
the last three decades in government subsidies to the oil industry.
What we are talking about here is a very small amount of money in this
bill, $23 million with this amendment, that would help the U.S.
Department of Agriculture help America pull forward and to try to
resolve our chief strategic vulnerability, which is our absolutely
total dependence on imported petroleum.
Recent studies cited by the Renewable Fuels Association found, for
example, that increasing ethanol production to just 5 billion gallons
annually would create 214,000 jobs, $5.3 billion in new private sector
investment in renewable fuel production facilities and increase
household income by $51.7 billion, because we would not be draining off
the dollars we spend on fuels to go to producers in other countries.
While the energy bill would establish a renewable fuel standard that
would lead us to a doubling of ethanol usage, we still need to support
the development of infrastructure and ethanol and biodiesel plant
construction and distribution systems. We are at the dawn of a new
fuels age. It is just a little keyhole as we look toward the future.
Yet this is one of the most important steps we can take in trying to
help America when she needs us most.
So every single Member here has to ask themselves as they consider
our small amendment, just to put $23 million in this account to keep it
equal with last year, are we going to live in the past, or are we going
to move forward? Are we going to ask agricultural America to pull
forward with the Nation? Or are we going to continue to live with our
heads and our pockets literally in the sands of the Middle East and
every other undemocratic place in the world?
American farmers want to move forward. Is this Congress going to help
them, or are we going to continue to live in the troubled past?
I ask for support on this amendment. Essentially again what it does,
it takes $8 million from the buildings accounts, moves it into title
IX, to keep it at $23 million, which is what we are spending in this
current fiscal year.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I think
it is a good offset.
{time} 1230
It is absolutely critical that we fund renewable energy as much as
possible. I am very pleased that we will be able to do this, increase
that account. Ethanol is so important as far as our dependency on
foreign oil. We have tremendous opportunities in the Midwest, in Iowa,
throughout the country to lessen our dependency on foreign oil with
such things as soy diesel, biomass, wind, energy, all of those things
that are renewable sources of energy and are going to be so important
for our future for energy independence in this country.
It is an economic issue. Through rural America, we have an
opportunity in rural America to do what we do best, and that is take
solar energy through photosynthesis, be able to convert that into corn,
soybeans, whatever kind of crops, and then convert that into renewable
sources of energy.
We need the dollars for research, it is absolutely critical, and I
rise in strong support of this amendment.
Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I am pleased to support this amendment with the gentlewoman from Ohio
(Ms. Kaptur), as well as my colleague from Iowa and others of this
body, which will restore $8 million in funding to the Department of
Agriculture's Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency program. The
Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency program was created under the
2002 farm bill and has had great success.
[[Page H5562]]
The program provides that grant funds can be used to pay up to 25
percent of the costs for eligible renewable energy projects. These
projects include those that derive energy from wind, solar, biomass, or
geothermal thermal sources, or hydrogen derived from these sources.
Awards are made on a competitive basis for the purchase of renewable
energy systems and to make energy improvements.
Last year, USDA ordered a total of 113 grants to program applicants
in 24 States. These grants totaled $21.2 million nationwide, including
more than $62,000 for renewable energy projects in the State of South
Dakota. These grants supported a broad array of renewable energy
projects, including ethanol plants, wind power projects, solar
projects, anaerobic digesters, direct combustion programs, and fuel
pellet systems.
Our amendment would bring funding to the full $23 million level
authorized under the 2002 farm bill, the same level as enacted in
fiscal year 2004. This program is a win-win for farmers, ranchers, and
consumers; and I feel it is important not to cut its funding levels.
This amendment is supported by a broad array of agricultural
commodity and energy groups from across my State, and I urge my
colleagues to increase funding for this important program.
Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize the strong leadership of the
ranking member, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), and the new and
strong leadership of our newest member, the gentlewoman from South
Dakota (Ms. Herseth), in bringing this important amendment before the
U.S. House of Representatives.
This amendment would not only assist us in achieving energy
independence sooner than we otherwise would, but let us look at some of
the specifics in this amendment which I think are very, very important,
not just to the United States of America as a whole, but also to our
particular region of the country, the Pacific Northwest, which is
particularly reliant on renewable sources of energy such as hydropower,
wind power, and other renewable energy sources which have less impact
on the environment than does our current reliance on oil and coal.
Last year, in the past, this is what this effort has achieved: it
assisted 35 wind power projects. It supported $7 million to support 30
anaerobic digesters; $1 million to support six solar projects; almost
$4 million to support 16 ethanol plants and anaerobic digester plants;
and also supported direct combustion and fuel pellet systems. These are
important projects locally, nationally, and affect the geopolitics of
the world.
The section 9006 program leverages a tremendous amount of private
sector investment, since the program provides a maximum of 25 percent
funding. This 3-to-1 leverage ratio is a good buy for the American
taxpayer. This fosters rural economic development and generates clean
and efficient energy.
The amendment is supported by the Alternative Fuels Renewable
Energies Council, the American Bioenergy Association, the American Corn
Growers Association, the American Council for an Energy Efficient
Economy, the American Wind Energy Association, the Chesapeake Climate
Action Network, the Energy Law and Policy Center, the Geothermal Energy
Association, the National Association of State Energy Officials, the
National Farmers Union, the Renewable Energy Action Project, the Solar
Energy Industries Association, and the Soybean Producers of America,
all strong supporters of this important amendment. The Spokane County,
and that, Mr. Chairman, is in my corner of the country, the Spokane
County Conservation District, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and
the Western Organization of Resource Councils, all of these
organizations support this amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
South Dakota (Ms. Herseth) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur),
the ranking member, because it makes sense. It leads to clean energy;
it leads to energy independence. This is what the best of agricultural
policy should do for America and the world.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the
ranking member, if she has any further comments.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. Wu) so very much for his excellent, excellent summary of what this
program has done. I want to thank him also for mentioning all of the
organizations that support our efforts here.
I want people to have this one photo in their mind. If we look at
total Trichart showing petroleum consumption in the United States, the
growing share of imports that are a part of that is apparent. This is
just a staggering set of statistics to keep in mind as we witness our
nation become more and more and more dependent on imported petroleum.
Here, this chart presents the one picture to keep in our minds.
The other one is this: we are at the dawn of the new fuels age. Less
than 1 percent, less than 1 percent of what we currently produce in
this country do we make ourselves from agriculturally based fuels. The
potential literally is unlimited. This bill takes us another small step
to open this window to begin to fuel ourselves and put those dollars in
our pockets.
So I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I ask the membership for
their support on this Kaptur-Herseth amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Hooley of Oregon
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Hooley of Oregon:
Page 5, line 15, insert after the dollar amount
``(decreased by $10,000,000)''.
Page 18, line 9, insert after the first dollar amount
``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on
this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 10 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?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would increase
funding for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service by $5
million for the purpose of combating sudden oak death.
Sudden oak death is a relatively new disease, first discovered in
California in 1995. Since that time it has spread to nurseries
throughout the west coast and actually has also been discovered in New
York. Caused by a fungus-like organism that invades susceptible trees
through the bark, killing portions of the tree, sudden oak death is
dangerous to both the nursery and Christmas tree industries, and to our
wild forests.
I want to commend the committee for including some additional funding
in this bill for research of sudden oak death. Because of the newness
and lack of knowledge we have about this disease, additional research
is essential, and I am strongly supportive of these efforts.
In addition to research, however, we must include additional funding
to investigate and eradicate sudden oak death, and the bill we have in
front of us today falls short of that necessary funding. Last year,
APHIS allocated $15 million toward efforts to fight sudden oak death
and is launching a national investigation to determine where sudden oak
death is located and how it is spreading. Additional funding is
necessary to complete the job.
In Oregon, the nursery industry is the number one sector of
agriculture, totaling over $700 million produced annually. The Oregon
Department of Agriculture has acted aggressively in an attempt to
identify and eradicate this disease.
Sudden oak death, however, is a national problem, not one unique just
to Oregon and, as a result, demands a national solution.
The nursery industry nationally is a $14 billion industry. Failure to
stop the spread of this disease could have devastating effects on the
American economy. Canada currently has a quarantine on California
nurseries and is considering placing one on Oregon and
[[Page H5563]]
Washington. In addition, Korea and Mexico are considering a quarantine
that would affect the export of Christmas trees. Even within the United
States, States are beginning to place quarantines on other States
because of sudden oak death.
Sudden oak death has real economic consequences, and we must take
additional steps to fight it. This amendment is merely a step in the
longer battle against this disease. This amendment is fully offset,
reducing funding from the USDA Buildings and Facilities Account. Even
with this reduction, they will receive at least as much money as they
did last year. This amendment will help stop sudden oak death and will
save American agriculture millions of dollars. I urge my colleagues to
support the Hooley-Wu amendment.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on
this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 10 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?
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, has this
been cleared with our leadership here, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. BONILLA. I would suggest to the gentleman that he consult with
the ranking member.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Ms. KAPTUR. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will state it.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, we did not hear the gentleman's request.
Mr. BONILLA. The unanimous consent request was that debate on this
amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 10 minutes, to be
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the
opponent.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, is that just on this amendment?
Mr. BONILLA. And any amendments thereto.
Ms. KAPTUR. Just amendments to this amendment?
Mr. BONILLA. And any second degree amendments.
Ms. KAPTUR. We would agree to that.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, are we agreeing
to time limitations on all subsequent amendments? Are we agreeing to a
10-minute limit on this amendment only?
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WU. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BONILLA. The unanimous consent request simply applies to this
amendment.
Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, is there any intention of the chairman or of
anyone that the chairman knows of to offer a secondary amendment?
Mr. BONILLA. No.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's unanimous consent request is that time
be limited to 10 minutes equally divided by each side on this amendment
and any amendment to this amendment.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?
Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would
like to understand, there are a number of us who would like to speak to
this. I would like to know on the time allocation, if we were to
approve the gentleman's request, when the time allocation would begin
and how much time would be available to speak to the amendment.
{time} 1245
The CHAIRMAN. The unanimous consent would go from this minute
forward. It is a unanimous consent request that there be 10 minutes
from this point forward on this amendment and any amendment thereto.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the
gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, would it be acceptable if we were to move
to 15 minutes equally divided?
Mr. BLUMENAUER. We have three people who have been waiting here,
patiently watching. I know some people are cranky, and I am going to
object unless there is at least 10 minutes that is allocated for the
three of us. We are willing to work with you to cut it down, but that
is my objection.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to revise the unanimous
consent request to say 15 minutes from this point on.
The CHAIRMAN. The unanimous consent request is that this amendment be
limited to 15 minutes equally divided.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman withdraws his objection. Is there further
objection?
Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, we just want to get clarification. We have
several speakers on this side, and if we were to be allotted 15 minutes
on this side, not divided with the other side, that would allow for all
of our people to speak.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon controls the time under his
reservation.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my unanimous consent request.
The CHAIRMAN. The unanimous consent request is withdrawn.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, before I state my objection to the
amendment, I would advise Members that if amendments are being brought
by the minority Members, that they consult with the ranking member and
with the leadership, and once agreements are made about unanimous
consents in the future, so that there does not have to be confusion on
the floor in response to the unanimous consent. So the request would
simply be made in good faith for a little more team work and
organization so that we do not have delays like we just experienced
that wind up defeating what we are trying to do.
But back to the subject at hand. I am rising in opposition to this
amendment that is currently under consideration. We are aware of the
sudden oak death causing severe problems, and I share the concern of
the authors of this amendment.
In May, USDA transferred $15.5 million in emergency funds to the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to help halt the spread of
sudden oak death to noninfested areas of the United States. The APHIS
contingency fund, which is an appropriated account, provided an
additional $2.5 million for sudden oak death this year. The bill before
us contains almost $2 million for sudden oak death eradication in
fiscal year 2005, the same amount as provided in fiscal year 2004.
The emergency authorities that allowed for the additional funding of
$18 million in 2004 are also in effect for 2005. Some of that $18
million will be carried over into 2005. So I really think that we are
prepared, if the problem is extensive, for anything that may occur in
the future, and we can certainly adjust and work with the authorizers
and with authors of this amendment to adjust that if necessary.
And, again, I am opposed to the amendment and want to state that
clearly.
Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
There is an emerging threat to the nursery stock and Christmas tree
industries, and I want to recognize my colleague, the gentlewoman from
Oregon (Ms. Hooley), and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer),
and I am pleased of the work with the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms.
Hooley) in offering this amendment.
Phytophthora ramorum is the causal agent of sudden oak death. This
pathogen causes disease on a wide, wide range of plant species,
including many crops important to the nursery industry such as
rhododendron and camellia and potentially affects Oregon's Christmas
tree industry also.
Together, nursery crops and Christmas trees are crucial not only to
jobs in Oregon but they also constitute over $1 billion in Oregon
exports. Oregon, by the way, is the Nation's largest grower of
Christmas trees.
Sudden oak death has already resulted in one county-wide quarantine
[[Page H5564]]
on nursery products in a county which I represent, Columbia County,
Oregon. This disease is threatening Oregon's nursery industry and its
Christmas tree growers.
To respond to this threat, Oregon has begun an aggressive joint State
and Federal inspection program that will gather and test plants from
almost 1,400 nurseries and Christmas tree growers. Each nursery will
submit a minimum of 40 plant tissue samples for laboratory analysis.
The ability of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, known
as APHIS, to process these samples in a timely manner is absolutely
essential to the Oregon agricultural economy, and I want to ensure that
APHIS has the necessary resources to do so.
This bill contains $1.98 million for emerging plant pests. Some of
that money will be applied to sudden oak death eradication. I am
pleased that this bill does provide some funding for sudden oak death
eradication. However, I do not believe that $1.98 million will provide
APHIS with enough resources to deal with the serious threat facing the
State of Oregon and the Nation as a whole.
In 2004 alone, USDA had to allocate over $17 million in emergency and
contingency funds for sudden oak death eradication. We are facing the
same threat in fiscal year 2005, and we should not, should not as a
matter of sound policy, rely solely on emergency funds to meet our
needs.
Mr. Chairman, the Hooley-Wu amendment transfers $5 million to APHIS
from the Agriculture buildings and facilities account for the purpose
of sudden oak death eradication. These additional funds will ensure
that important collaborative efforts between the States and APHIS
continue in a timely manner and in an effective way.
I would like to thank my colleagues, the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms.
Hooley), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and
Related Agencies, staff members and all affiliated staff for their
assistance with this issue.
I believe that, by working together, we can minimize the economic
impact of sudden oak death in Oregon and around the United States.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
I will not take the full 5 minutes, in the spirit of trying to move
this forward, but I am concerned about the sense of urgency of the
problem dealing with sudden oak death. I appreciate my colleagues, the
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Wu), highlighting the problem as it relates to our State.
The nursery industry is an important part of our agricultural base.
Just 1 percent of Oregon farm land devoted to the nursery industry
produces 20 percent of total crop value.
This is not just an Oregon problem. We are involved with massive
amounts of transfer of plant material around the country, and if we are
not able to move quickly to deal with sudden oak death, we risk not
just crippling the nursery business in Oregon but it is going to have
consequences for people throughout the country as this disease makes
its way through the system.
I hope that we would in fact approve this amendment. It is a modest
amount of money to make a difference to a $14 billion national industry
and prevent much more serious steps that will need to be taken in the
future.
So, with due respect to the chair of the subcommittee, I would hope
that my colleagues would approve the amendment to exercise the
foresight to avoid a problem in our State, in our region, in the West
to avoid becoming truly a national disaster.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Wu-Hooley amendment.
These two individuals from Oregon are doing a big service for not only
their State but my State and many States around the country, because it
is absolutely important that we control the spread of sudden oak death
and that we learn to treat plants effectively that are being affected
by this disease.
While sudden oak death's funding through APHIS is set at last year's
levels in this bill, this fast-spreading disease has not remained at
last year's levels.
In the last year alone, sudden oak death was found for the first time
in a nursery in southern California, and there is evidence that it has
spread to the Northeast and also the Southeast part of the United
States, and that ignores the fact that we have already invested $5
million to find out what is the cause and how do we treat it.
Nurseries in California are struggling with quarantines that have
been put in place against them and their nursery products in Canada and
also in our own country in Kentucky, and quarantines of nurseries in
Washington State and Oregon State are also under scrutiny.
I have been advocating on behalf of funding to fight this disease
since it first appeared in my district in Marin County in 1995. Sudden
oak death continues in spite of my efforts and in spite of the $5
million that the Federal Government has invested in finding out the
cause and what we can be doing about it. Sudden oak death continues to
slowly but surely spread, and more and more communities around the
country have come to understand that this disease is devastating, and
it absolutely must be addressed.
And I remind you that sudden oak death's funding to date has not made
a dent in the problem. In fact, the problem spreads.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that my colleagues join me in supporting this
amendment before sudden oak affects the entire country. Please do not
wait until this disease spreads to your own community before your
beautiful trees, beautiful oak trees in Marin County or rhododendron
plants around the country, before these trees and these plants turn
brown, before they die, before they have to be taken away, before you
recognize that this is a real problem and we must put the proper
funding behind it. Vote yes on the Hooley-Wu amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and
pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley)
will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Weiner
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, as the amendment is being brought forward,
I would like to reserve a point of order. We have not seen this
amendment yet.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Weiner:
Page 5, line 15, insert ``(decreased by $19,667,000)''
after the dollar amount.
Page 18, line 9, insert ``(increased by $19,667,000)''
after the 1st dollar amount.
{time} 1300
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to thank the chairman and ranking
member of the subcommittee for their work on this bill.
In this bill we are investing in the neighborhood of about $47
million to wipe out the boll weevil. It poses a threat to an important
U.S. commodity. It poses a threat to a way of life to many people. In
fact, at the same time we are dramatically reducing the funds necessary
to wipe out the Asian long horn beetle, my friend here. The Asian long
horn beetle has devastated trees in New York, Illinois and New Jersey
and is showing a path that could spread to over half the trees in the
United States.
There is a way that we can stop this. An eradication program was
begun by APHIS 3 years ago funded by this Congress that has finally
started to crest the expansion of this pest. Unfortunately, in the
chairman's mark we underfund by a magnitude of about $20 million what
APHIS says will be necessary to eradicate the threat.
The problem that we face here in this House is we run the risk of
wasting a rather substantial investment of money that we have paid in
the last 2
[[Page H5565]]
fiscal years to wipe out this insect. What this bug has done since 1996
has devastated trees throughout New York, and I know the old story
about the tree growing in Brooklyn. In fact, there are thousands and
thousands of trees that have been impacted already and without a steady
investment of funds will continue to.
What we propose to do here is not to take the optimum amount of
funding. According to the State of New York, it would take about $72
million a year for the next 5 years in order to wipe out this pest, but
take the minimum amount that APHIS says they require, which is $30
million over the next several years, to eradicate this threat so it
does not move any further.
Right now, Ground Zero for this problem is in the New York-New Jersey
area; but we have seen it spring up in the center of the country in
Illinois. We have also seen how difficult it is to get a handle on it.
To be very honest with you, the only way they have found to get rid of
this pest once it is in a tree is to chop down the tree and scrap it
and to shred that tree to bits. We cannot risk over 47 percent of the
trees in this country which, according to the Department of
Agriculture, are susceptible to this threat. Now is the time to cut it
off at the tentacles or whatever it has. Now is the time for us to
continue our battle against this.
The last thing we should be doing, Mr. Chairman, is allowing the good
work of the committee in the past which has invested money to wipe this
out and then say, essentially, we will stop on a dime and revert to a
place where we will try to hold this in check until we have more money.
We have started on this path. The only responsible thing to do is to
continue on this program which will require about $30 million a year.
My amendment provides an additional $19.6 million which would prevent
this pest from spreading any further.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the point of order.
Point of Order
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) still
insist on his point of order?
Mr. BONILLA. I do, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Weiner) proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read. The
amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI
because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the
bill.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) wish to
be heard on the point of order?
Mr. WEINER. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, am I right that there are two parts to the point of
order? One, that we have not yet reached page 5 which my amendment
strikes; and the second part is that it increases outlays; is that
correct?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla).
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard on the point of
order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I am asking is the point of order, does it
make two separate points? One being we have not reached the page and
the other being that it does outlays? Just so I understand what I am
responding to.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is that the amendment reaches ahead
to a portion of the bill not yet read, and that a possible defense of
that point of order is not available unless the amendment is both
budget authority and outlay neutral.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, if I could be heard on the point of order.
We are at the chapter of the bill. We are at page 5. We are at the
relevant paragraph of the bill. That is a matter of fact. And as far as
the outlays, this has previously been scored for another amendment, and
I am making a 6 percent reduction, and we are waiting for word from
CBO, which hopefully will be coming momentarily which will clarify the
other point.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman wish to be heard further on his
point of order?
Mr. WEINER. I think I have just about maximized my statement.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
Does the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) wish to be heard on the
point of order?
Ms. KAPTUR. I wish to be heard on the point of order.
I wonder if the majority could share the CBO scoring with us. We do
not have a report back, or at least it has not been referred to us in
general.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to hear the ruling on the
point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
Ms. KAPTUR. Do I take it there is no CBO scoring that the majority is
able to provide us with?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will rule on this point of order.
Mr. WEINER. May I be heard on the point of order?
If the ruling of the Chair is that we have not yet reached that
point, will I be free to offer it again when the time is more
propitious?
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I did not get an answer to my question. Mr.
Chairman, I asked the majority whether they have the information on the
CBO scoring. The minority does not have that report. If this is going
to be a factor in the judgment of the Chair, we would appreciate the
information.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is attempting to answer the gentleman from
New York's (Mr. Weiner) question.
The first instruction is in order at this time in the reading. The
second instruction touches a portion of the bill not yet read.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, so if you are required under the rule to
have an offset, then obviously they are going to be at two different
sections of the bill. How can you possibly offer them two places at
once?
The CHAIRMAN. In order to avail itself of clause 2(f) of rule XXI,
the offset must be budget authority neutral and outlay neutral, and the
proponent of the amendment has the burden of proof that it is outlay
neutral.
Mr. WEINER. If I can further be heard, so the point in the bill we
are at is not in issue? It is only whether it is budget and outlay
neutral?
The CHAIRMAN. That is correct. The Chair is prepared to rule.
Mr. WEINER. Does the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) want to be
heard on this?
Ms. KAPTUR. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I was trying to get a clarification
from the Chair. If the majority has objections based on CBO numbers,
where are those numbers? They have not been provided to the minority.
So we do not understand the nature of the objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair would like to
cite page 822 of the House Rules and Manual. It says as follows: ``The
burden is on the proponent of an amendment to show that the amendment
does not increase levels of budget authority or outlays within the
meaning of clause 2(f).''
To be considered en bloc pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI, an
amendment must not propose to increase the levels of budget authority
or outlays in the bill. Because the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Weiner) proposes a net increase in the levels of
outlays in the bill as argued by the chairman of the subcommittee on
appropriations, it may not avail itself of clause 2(f) to address
portions of the bill not yet read.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) to
enter into a colloquy.
On January 7, 2004, the National Academies of Sciences released a
report, ``Biological Confinement of Genetically Engineered Organisms.''
The study focused on biological methods for confining transgenic crop
plants, grasses, trees, fish, shell fish, and insects. The study
provides an evaluation of current scientific understanding of various
methods, advantages of each method, reasons why methods fail,
possibilities for minimization and mitigation of those failures,
feasibility of large scale screening for failures, and ecological
consequences of wide-spread use of these biological confinement
methods.
On February 23, 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists released a
pilot
[[Page H5566]]
study, ``Gone to Seed: Transgenic Contaminants in the Traditional Seed
Supply,'' which found genetically injured DNA is contaminating
traditional seeds of three major U.S. crops: corn, soy beans, and
canola. Seed contamination if left unchecked could disrupt agricultural
trade, unfairly burden the organic industry, and allow hazardous
materials into the food supply. These results show that confinement of
existing transgenic crops has failed and make the National Academies of
Sciences report critical.
In response, 15 Members of Congress, including me, sent a letter to
the Secretary of Agriculture, Ann Veneman, on April 2, 2004, seeking a
response by the USDA to the UCS pilot study. The letter raised several
concerns, including the potential elimination of traditional,
nongenetically engineered seeds, the threat to organic farming, and the
potential contamination of food by pharmaceutical and industrial crops.
On June 23, 2004, the Under Secretary of Research, Education and
Economics, Joseph Jen, in a letter agreed with the conclusion of the
UCS report that contamination has occurred and even went further to say
that it was not unexpected. Moreover, he further stated that ``testing
larger sample sizes in other crops would likely yield much the same
results: transgene DNA occurs in seed lots of 'nontransgenic' varieties
at a frequency within accepted commercial tolerances.'' Essentially,
the USDA admits that contamination is occurring.
In light of the USDA agreement that contamination is ongoing, I would
like to work with the chairman and ranking member to take action
necessary to minimize the contamination of nongenetically engineered
seeds, protect organic farm production, and prevent contamination of
the food supply by pharmaceutical and industrial crops.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I would state that I appreciate the
gentleman's statement and would work with him to both support the
development of the biotech industry and protect the environment and
food supply.
Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentleman very much.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Weiner
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Weiner:
Page 5, line 15, insert ``(decreased by $19,667,000)''
after the dollar amount.
Page 18, line 9, insert ``(increased by $18,000,000)''
after the 1st dollar amount.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this
amendment. We have not seen this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, I have already
made my remarks; I want to try to facilitate as quickly as possible the
amendment.
The justification is the same. The number has been changed to reflect
what the CBO said would be necessary to take into account the change in
the rate of outlays to accommodate the Budget Authority change that we
are trying to make.
{time} 1315
If the chairman would like for me to yield to him on my time, I
would, in the interest of time, if he has any questions about the
amendment. If not, in that case, let me just summarize again.
The number that we chose to increase by would provide what APHIS says
is the necessary full funding to eradicate this pest, which is
something that has ravaged New York City, ravaged Queens and Brooklyn,
also has been spotted most troubling in Illinois and in New Jersey. We
would be dramatically walking away from our commitment to wiping out
this pest if we were to reduce to the chairman's mark.
We have to decide what we want to do. Do we want to take this cause
that we have decided is necessary to be eradicated, we funded tens of
millions of the dollars to eradicate it by a date certain? If we were
to adopt the number in the chairman's mark, we would essentially be
saying a lot of that money would be wasted because we would allow that
pest to further infect trees not only in New York and New Jersey and
Connecticut but apparently all throughout the Midwest.
I ask for a favorable consideration.
Point of Order
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) insist on
his point of order?
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I do have a point of order.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read. The amendment may
not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the
amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York wish to be heard on
the point of order?
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I have a fax here from the CBO scoring
section that confirms that my amendment's outlays do not exceed the
budget authority. As to the point of order, I still am not clear on. We
are at page 5 where my amendment chooses to decrease funding.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will examine the CBO estimate.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone else wish to be heard on this amendment?
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
I rise in support of the gentleman from New York's (Mr. Weiner)
amendment regarding these APHIS accounts. He is particularly focused on
the Asian long-horned beetle which is devastating there in New York
City and Chicago. We have many other invasive species. The chart I am
holding here gives some representation of the exponential increase in
this particular account which combats these destructive invasive
species. We call it APHIS. That stands for Animal Plant Health
Inspection Service.
If we look at the beginning of the 1990s to the present, the number
of invasive species coming into this country is phenomenal, largely due
to uninspected and nonfumigated material, much of it live, that ends up
causing billions of dollars worth of biological damage across this
country. Our forest systems are threatened. City trees are threatened.
Our nursery industry is threatened. The maple sugar industry is
threatened. If we look in every corner of this country, we have got an
invasive species problem.
What we have been doing, and I support the gentleman's amendment, is
to try to assist the States to remediate even when there are no known
biological predators for the given problem.
This is a multibillion dollar problem we are trying to take care of
with old technology in the sense that we are only taking taxpayer money
to try to solve this problem, rather than place the burden on those
commercial importers and others through our trade agreements who are
causing the problem in the first place. We cannot let all the trees in
New York City be wasted nor Emerald Ash borer in Ohio and Michigan that
are killing all of our ash trees.
We have a serious national problem. It is absorbing more and more of
the money inside of our agriculture bill.
I think the gentleman's amendment is very worthy. It is really a
trade-off between a few windows in an account in buildings and
facilities versus live material throughout in the country and major,
major ecosystems that are threatened with absolute extinction.
So there is no question we have to support the gentleman's amendment.
But, long term, we have asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture time
and again concerning these trade agreements to find us answers that
deal with environmental remediation, that places the burden on those
who are responsible for the damage in the first place. Every single
year when they appear before our committee, they have no answer.
This Secretary went to Qatar. I said to her, Madam Secretary, deal
with these environmental problems that are causing devastation across
our country. It never came out in any kind of a trade discussion that
occurred by this administration.
So, at the least, we have to support this gentleman's amendment. But
let us recognize the magnitude of this problem that is being placed on
the taxpayers of every single one of our
[[Page H5567]]
States and especially burdensome to, for example, the citizens of
Florida, the citizens of Ohio and Michigan, the citizens of New York
and Illinois. We can go across this country. But until we get
environmental standards built into these trade agreements, we are going
to continue to gouge the taxpayers of this country.
It is the wrong solution. But it is the only one we have. So I want
to support the gentleman's amendment. It is just too bad that the only
place we have to go is the taxpayers rather than finding solution as we
do in any other tort case that you would have before the courts of this
country i.e., those enterprises that caused the problems in the first
place should assume the burden of remediation I think the Asian long-
horned beetle came from China.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I also would like to underscore the
importance of this amendment. The beetle has struck two parks in the
district that I represent. Once they infest the trees, they have to all
be chopped down. They have been found three blocks from Central Park in
New York, and we are trying mightily to keep it out of Central Park and
from moving to the upstate forested area of New York State and moving
to other States.
We have to stop the beetle and spend as much money as it takes.
Because once they infest a tree, the only alternative is to chop the
tree down and all the trees in the surrounding area. It is a tremendous
crisis of the environment in our neighborhood, and I strongly support
the ranking member's statements and the gentleman's amendment.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments
and would call for a vote on the amendment.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear that I oppose this amendment.
This is a very important issue that the gentleman from New York raises.
We have increased the funding in APHIS to address situations like this
around the country. This was at the request of the gentleman from New
York and also the other gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), who sits
on the subcommittee.
We realize that there may be an additional need for more money down
the road, and if that need does arise, it could come from the CCC fund
under emergency designation. So this is not like we are ignoring this
issue. We simply feel like we, for the time being, have put sufficient
funds into this account and would address it later if needed.
So, again, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WEINER. 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. Weiner)
will be postponed.
Are there any further amendments to this paragraph?
If not, 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.), $15,730,000, 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, $22,939,000, 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, $3,852,000: 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 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, $9,378,000: 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, $78,392,000, 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.
Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Blumenauer:
Page 8, line 6, after the first dollar amount insert the
following: ``(reduced by $1,200,000) (increased by
$1,200,000)''.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on
this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 20 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 Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) is
recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I am happy to expedite this issue. I rise to offer this amendment in
collaboration with my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Tancredo), to provide an additional $1.2 million to improve the
enforcement of Federal animal fighting laws. This is a perennial
problem that the Federal Government has a critical role to solve.
Last year, the House passed an amendment to increase funding by
$800,000, and I am appreciative for the approval by the body of that
legislation and appreciate the growing support to combat these
dangerous activities that threaten the health and well-being of both
humans and animals and threaten the prosperity of our agricultural
industry.
We have had earlier this year over 130 representatives and 47 members
of the other body requesting this $1.2 million increase for animal
fighting enforcement in letters to the Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration and Related Agencies. This broad bipartisan support
reflects our constituents' concern for meaningful enforcement of the
Federal animal law, but, despite this broad bipartisan support, there
are no additional funds designated within the account specifically for
this task.
This amendment would provide $1.2 million for the Office of Inspector
General, the chief law enforcement arm of the USDA, to focus on animal
fighting cases, working closely with State and local enforcement
personnel to complement their efforts.
[[Page H5568]]
This funding does not take money away from any other programs. It
simply removes funds from the Office of Inspector General, places them
back into the same account to designate the $1.2 million for
enforcement of animal fighting laws.
Now, while the Inspector General did receive an increase in funding
this year, it was to compensate for salary and cost increases and was
not specifically providing funding for the enforcement of animal
fighting.
Even though dog fighting is banned in 50 States and cockfighting is
banned in 48, the Federal Government, as I mentioned earlier, must be
involved because participants in animal fights often come together from
several States at a time and animals are routinely moved across State
lines.
Make no mistake, this is not some innocent pastime. Dogfighting and
cockfighting are barbaric activities in which animals are given drugs
to make them hyperaggressive, drugs to clot their blood more quickly so
they can keep fighting longer. They are forced by their handlers to
keep fighting even after they have suffered grievous injuries such as
pierced lungs and gouged eyes. Dogfights and cockfights do not only
involve deplorable animal abuse but they are inevitably, without
question, involved with illegal gambling, often drug traffic and
violence to people.
It is well-documented that animal fighters often bring their children
to these spectacles, sending a terrible message to them about animal
cruelty and violence and subjecting them to the aforementioned illegal
activities.
Some dogfighters even steal pets to use as bait for training their
dogs. Some abandon the fighting animals, leaving them to roam
neighborhoods and wreak havoc. Any dog bred and trained to fight poses
a public safety risk, and there have been numerous tragic examples,
many involving children.
Animal fighting also poses a severe threat to the stability of our
Nation's agricultural economy. This is something we brought to the
floor in the past and I feel has not been given the attention that it
needs.
Secretary of Agriculture Veneman indicated in a letter from January
that cockfighting has been implicated in the introduction and spread of
exotic Newcastle Disease in California in years 2002 and 2003 which
cost United States taxpayers nearly $200 million to eradicate and cost
the United States poultry industry many millions more in lost export
markets.
{time} 1330
``We believe,'' the Secretary says, ``that tougher penalties and
prosecution will help deter illegal movement of birds as well as the
inhumane practice of cockfighting itself.''
It has also been implicated in the deaths of at least two children in
Asia this year who were exposed through cockfighting activities to bird
flu. This is why the National Chicken Council, which represents 95
percent of U.S. poultry producers and processors, has stated that they
are ``concerned that the nationwide traffic in game birds creates a
continuing hazard for the dissemination of animal diseases.''
Surely, Mr. Chairman, spending this $1.2 million to crack down on
illegal animal fighting is a wise investment to prevent the spread of
costly future diseases. Animal fighting is no longer simply an animal
welfare issue, although it certainly is that. It is an epidemic that
costs taxpayers millions of dollars. It threatens our food supply and
destroys the hard work of American farmers, promoting illegal gambling
and drug activities and putting the public at risk.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in support of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment for several reasons.
First, the additional $400,000, a 50 percent increase above the fiscal
year 2004 level, would go to the Inspector General for dog fighting and
cockfighting enforcement and result in offsetting cuts in critical OIG
activities such as BSE investigations and fighting food stamp fraud.
Does the gentleman really wish to cut these programs? These are very
important functions.
Second, the Department has told us that animal fighting enforcement
is difficult to implement because it is just a misdemeanor offense
under the Federal Animal Welfare Act. Adding more money to the budget
will not solve this problem. There is, however, proposed legislation in
both the House and the Senate to make animal fighting a felony offense.
If that legislation is enacted, then it may be appropriate to consider
additional funds in the future. OIG is strongly opposed to this
amendment.
Third, we cannot justify a 50 percent increase in this program when
we have cut overall discretionary spending on ag programs by $67
million from last year's levels. This bill already is very supportive
of programs to ensure the humane care and treatment of animals. The
bill already includes, for example, $800,000 for animal fighting
enforcement in the Office of Inspector General's budget. Further, we
provided $315,000 for animal welfare and a $225,000 increase for
regulatory enforcement in the APHIS program and have fully funded $5
million for enforcement of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act and the
Food Safety and Inspection Service.
If the sponsors of this amendment were serious about this, programs
like the ones I just mentioned are the ones that should be cut to pay
for this amendment; but then that would force them to prioritize, like
we all have to do. We have put a lot of work into this bill, and we
feel like we have addressed all the issues being addressed here today.
I would strongly support continuing along that road and rejecting this
amendment.
I oppose this amendment and want to make that very clear.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the remainder of my
time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for
yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of the Blumenauer-
Tancredo amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I recognize that the limited additional funds being
proposed here for the Inspector General to focus on animal fighting
certainly reflects what is happening in our country. Last year, we
supported the amendments to provide $800,000 for the Inspector General
to focus on animal fighting cases. This is a modest expansion to that.
One of the items I wanted to point out is that when the Inspector
General gets funds and they are able to work on a problem, if there is
criminal wrongdoing there is a financial recovery to the government of
the United States. An absolute relationship between the funds we give
to the Inspector General and the ability for general accounts, Treasury
accounts, to have increased criminal payments because of the litigation
that is done through the Inspector General's office.
So even though there is a little more money being provided in the
amendment, believe me, it will be recovered and returned to the
Treasury because of the fantastic job that the Inspector General does.
In fact, we will probably end up with more money in the general
treasury as a result of this amendment.
With all that is going on with animal diseases, I think it is fair to
say the Department should be more vigilant with respect to animal
welfare issues. And I want to commend the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Blumenauer) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) for bringing
this forward. It is a shame that funds are not requested within the
administration's request; but they, like us, are trying to deal with
unrealistically small allocations that our committee has been given.
We will certainly support this amendment and hope to increase the
Inspector General's accounts even more as we move toward conference. So
the gentleman has my support and I commend him very much.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the remaining time is?
The CHAIRMAN. Two minutes.
[[Page H5569]]
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time,
and let me conclude by saying that I appreciate the expressions of
interest and concern on the part of my friend, the distinguished Chair
of the subcommittee. The point is, after having worked on this issue
now for over 3 years in this Congress, I find that this is
extraordinarily elusive. And the reason it is elusive, and the reason
that animal fighting continues in this country to be a problem, is
because Congress does not step forward to stop it.
The gentleman mentioned the problem, that it is a misdemeanor. So
people do not want to deal with enforcement. That was a tactical
decision that was made by the people who apologize for this interest.
There are, make no mistake about it, lobbyists here for illegal game-
fighting birds, for example, who ply their trade here behind closed
doors in Congress, and who have successfully fought to keep the
criminal provisions as low as they can so that they can use the excuse,
when the issue comes forward, well, we really cannot enforce it because
the penalty provisions are not strong enough.
It is time for us to say enough to illegal animal fighting for dogs
and game birds. My distinguished friend from Ohio points out that there
are opportunities to recover money if we were aggressive about it and
to stop using the excuse that because we, Congress, refuse to increase
the penalties, well, then, we are not going to mess with it. I would
strongly suggest that we stop hiding behind this smoke screen and stop
serving as an apologist for a despicable industry.
I look forward to working with my friend to increase the penalties.
But in the meantime, approve this amendment and send a signal that we
want what we have to be enforced.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Blumenauer-
Tancredo amendment. I am proud, once again, to join forces with my
colleague from Oregon on this important issue. This amendment would
provide $1,200,000 to the Office of Inspector General, the chief law
enforcement arm of USDA, to focus on animal fighting cases, working
closely with state and local law enforcement personnel to complement
their efforts.
Last year we were successful in offering an amendment that secured
$800,000 for the Office of Inspector General to combat animal fighting.
This year, we are taking the funds that are already going to the Office
of Inspector General and ensuring that $1.2 million goes into enforcing
the law.
This is a small investment to avoid further very costly disease
outbreaks spread by illegal cockfighters. According to a letter that
Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman sent on May 24th to the
Appropriations Committee, ``fighting birds have been implicated in the
introduction and spread of exotic Newcastle disease in California in
2002-2003, which cost U.S. taxpayers nearly $200 million to eradicate,
and cost to the U.S. poultry industry many millions more in lost export
markets.'' Secretary Veneman also notes that illegal cockfighting poses
risks of spreading other diseases such as avian influenza, which has
the potential to directly harm people.
It's not a lot of money. It will help send a signal to those engaged
in illegal dogfighting and cockfighting activities across state lines
that there is some threat of federal prosecution. Given the USDA's
history of non-enforcement in this area, we think it's important for
Congress to take the opportunity to send a signal that we want their
continued attention on this.
With your help last year, we were able to help the United States
Department of Agriculture enforce the law. This year, we continue to
ask you to help us give the USDA the tools they need to accomplish this
goal.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to this paragraph?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Office of the General Counsel
For necessary expenses of the Office of the General
Counsel, $35,486,000.
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,
$592,000.
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, $76,575,000.
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, $128,661,000, of which
up to $22,520,000 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,
$1,057,029,000: 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
subdivision, 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 all rights and title of the
United States in the 1.0664-acre parcel of land including
improvements, as recorded at Book 1320, Page 253, records of
Larimer County, State of Colorado, shall be conveyed to the
Board of Governors of the Colorado State University for the
benefit of Colorado State University.
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, $202,000,000, 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, $628,607,000, as follows: to carry out
the provisions of the Hatch Act of 1887 (7 U.S.C. 361a-i),
$180,648,000; for grants for cooperative forestry research
(16 U.S.C. 582a through a-7), $22,384,000; for payments to
the 1890 land-grant colleges, including Tuskegee University
and West Virginia State College (7 U.S.C. 3222), $37,000,000,
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)), $88,194,000; for special grants
for agricultural research on improved pest control (7 U.S.C.
450i(c)), $15,756,000; for competitive research grants (7
U.S.C. 450i(b)), $180,000,000; for the support of animal
health and disease programs (7 U.S.C. 3195), $5,098,000; for
supplemental and alternative crops and products (7 U.S.C.
3319d), $1,196,000; for grants for research pursuant to the
Critical Agricultural Materials Act (7 U.S.C. 178 et seq.),
$1,111,000, 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),
$1,087,000, 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.
[[Page H5570]]
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), $4,000,000; for
sustainable agriculture research and education (7 U.S.C.
5811), $12,722,000; 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
College, $12,411,000, 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,
$42,610,000.
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.
Extension Activities
For payments to States, the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, Micronesia, Northern
Marianas, and American Samoa, $440,349,000, 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, $277,242,000; 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,
$58,909,000; payments for the pest management program under
section 3(d) of the Act, $10,759,000; payments for the farm
safety program under section 3(d) of the Act, $4,600,000;
payments to upgrade research, extension, and teaching
facilities at the 1890 land-grant colleges, including
Tuskegee University and West Virginia State College, as
authorized by section 1447 of Public Law 95-113 (7 U.S.C.
3222b), $16,912,000, to remain available until expended;
payments for youth-at-risk programs under section 3(d) of the
Smith-Lever Act, $8,481,000; for youth farm safety education
and certification extension grants, to be awarded
competitively under section 3(d) of the Act, $499,000;
payments for carrying out the provisions of the Renewable
Resources Extension Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 1671 et seq.),
$4,093,000; 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, $4,000,000; 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 College, $33,133,000, 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, $16,452,000.
Integrated Activities
For the integrated research, education, and extension
grants programs, including necessary administrative expenses,
$66,255,000, as follows: for competitive grants programs
authorized under section 406 of the Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7626),
$43,242,000, including $12,971,000 for the water quality
program, $14,967,000 for the food safety program, $4,531,000
for the regional pest management centers program, $4,889,000
for the Food Quality Protection Act risk mitigation program
for major food crop systems, $1,497,000 for the crops
affected by Food Quality Protection Act implementation,
$2,498,000 for the methyl bromide transition program, and
$1,889,000 for the organic transition program; 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, $2,500,000, to
remain available until September 30, 2006 for the critical
issues program, and $1,513,000 for the regional rural
development centers program; and $18,000,000 for the homeland
security program authorized under section 1484 of the
National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Act
of 1977, to remain available until September 30, 2006.
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; $721,000.
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, $808,823,000, of which $4,119,000 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
$47,000,000 shall be used for the boll weevil eradication
program for cost share purposes or for debt retirement for
active eradication zones: 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 2005, 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, $75,892,000, 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 $64,459,000 (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.
[[Page H5571]]
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 $15,800,000 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, $37,540,000: 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, $595,000.
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), $824,746,000, of which no
less than $746,010,000 shall be available for 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 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, $631,000.
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, $1,007,597,000: 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),
$4,000,000.
Dairy Indemnity Program
(including transfers 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, $2,116,253,000, of which $1,200,000,000
shall be for unsubsidized guaranteed loans, $266,253,000
shall be for subsidized guaranteed loans and $650,000,000
shall be for direct loans; Indian tribe land acquisition
loans, $2,000,000; 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, $18,120,000, of which $7,420,000 shall be for
guaranteed loans, and $10,700,000 shall be for direct loans;
operating loans, $139,783,000, of which $38,760,000 shall be
for unsubsidized guaranteed loans, $35,438,000 shall be for
subsidized guaranteed loans, and $65,585,000 shall be for
direct loans; and Indian tribe land acquisition loans,
$105,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $297,445,000, of
which $289,445,000 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), $72,044,000: 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 Agriculture
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 related, either directly or indirectly, 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,
$731,000.
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
[[Page H5572]]
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, $813,673,000, of which
not less than $9,250,000 is for snow survey and water
forecasting, and not less than $11,722,000 is for operation
and establishment of the plant materials centers, and of
which not less than $23,500,000 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: Provided further,
That none of the funds made available under this paragraph by
this or any other appropriations Act may be used to provide
technical assistance with respect to programs listed in
section 1241(a) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3841(a)).
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), $11,083,000: Provided, That none
of the funds made available under this paragraph by this or
any other appropriations Act may be used to provide technical
assistance with respect to programs listed in section 1241(a)
of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3841(a)).
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, $86,487,000, 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. 701 and 16 U.S.C. 1006a): Provided,
That not to exceed $40,000,000 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: Provided further, That none of
the funds made available under this paragraph by this or any
other appropriations Act may be used to provide technical
assistance with respect to programs listed in section 1241(a)
of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3841(a)).
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, $30,091,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That none of the funds
made available under this paragraph by this or any other
appropriations Act may be used to provide technical
assistance with respect to programs listed in section 1241(a)
of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3841(a)).
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), $51,641,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That none of the funds made
available under this paragraph by this or any other
appropriations Act may be used to provide technical
assistance with respect to programs listed in section 1241(a)
of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3841(a)):
Provided further, That the Secretary shall enter into a
cooperative or contribution agreement 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 $3,504,300 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,
$632,000.
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, $667,408,000, to remain
available until expended, of which $39,539,000 shall be for
rural community programs described in section 381E(d)(1) of
such Act; of which $552,689,000 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 $75,180,000 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
of the amount appropriated for the Rural Community
Development Initiative, not less than $200,000 shall be in
the form of predevelopment planning grants, not to exceed
$50,000 each, with the balance for low-interest revolving
loans to be used for capital and other related expenses, and
made available to nonprofit based community development
organizations: Provided further, That such organizations
should demonstrate experience in the administration of
revolving loan programs and providing technical assistance to
cooperatives: 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; $2,000,000 shall be for grants to the
Delta Regional Authority (7 U.S.C. 1921 et seq.): 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, of which
$5,513,000 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 $22,166,000 shall be available through June 30,
2005, for authorized empowerment zones and enterprise
communities and communities designated by the Secretary of
Agriculture as Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones; of
which $1,081,000 shall be for the rural community programs
described in section 381E(d)(1) of such Act, of which
$12,582,000 shall be for the rural utilities programs
described in section 381E(d)(2) of such Act, and of which
$8,503,000 shall be for the rural business and cooperative
development programs described in section
[[Page H5573]]
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; $143,625,000:
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: $4,409,297,000 for loans to
section 502 borrowers, as determined by the Secretary, of
which $1,100,000,000 shall be for direct loans, and of which
$3,309,297,000 shall be for unsubsidized guaranteed loans;
$35,000,000 for section 504 housing repair loans;
$116,063,000 for section 515 rental housing; $100,000,000 for
section 538 guaranteed multi-family housing loans; $5,045,000
for section 524 site loans; $11,501,000 for credit sales of
acquired property, of which up to $1,501,000 may be for
multi-family credit sales; and $10,000,000 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, $160,988,000, of which $127,380,000 shall be for
direct loans, and of which $33,608,000, to remain available
until expended, shall be for unsubsidized guaranteed loans;
section 504 housing repair loans, $10,171,000; repair and
rehabilitation of section 515 rental housing, $54,654,000;
section 538 multi-family housing guaranteed loans,
$3,490,000; multi-family credit sales of acquired property,
$727,000: Provided, That of the total amount appropriated in
this paragraph, $7,100,000 shall be available through June
30, 2005, 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, $448,889,000,
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, $592,000,000; 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, not more than $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 nonprofit
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 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, 2005, 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, $42,500,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That of the total amount
appropriated, $1,800,000 shall be available through June 30,
2005, 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, $36,765,000, 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)),
$34,213,000.
For the cost of direct loans, $15,868,000, 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, 2005, for
Federally Recognized Native American Tribes and of which
$3,449,000 shall be available through June 30, 2005, 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, $2,447,000 shall be available through
June 30, 2005, 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, $4,321,000 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, $4,698,000, 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, $4,698,000
shall not be obligated and $4,698,000 are rescinded.
{time} 1345
Mr. LaHOOD. 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.
Miller of Florida) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bass, 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. 4766)
making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution
thereon.
____________________