[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.

                          ____________________