[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 65 (Tuesday, May 23, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H3039-H3079]
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, 2007
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 830 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 5384.
The Chair designates the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) as
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Miller) to assume the chair temporarily.
{time} 1201
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 5384) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, with Mr. Miller of
Florida (Acting Chairman) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered
read the first time.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring before the House today the fiscal
year 2007 appropriations bill for Agriculture, Rural Development, the
Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies. Before I do so, I
would like to say how proud I am to be serving in my final year as
chairman of the subcommittee. It has been a great privilege and a great
experience.
I want to compliment my ranking member, Ms. DeLauro, for helping us
get to this point today to produce a good bill for the American people.
My goal every year has been to produce a bipartisan bill.
We began our hearings on the budget on February 15, and we added an
additional hearing at the request of Ms. DeLauro on bird flu, which is
a very important issue to people not just in this country, but around
the world; and I have tried very hard to accommodate every Member who
had a request for this bill. But it has been difficult. We received
this year over 1,600 individual requests for specific spending from
most Members of the House.
I would say that all Members can support this bill and tell their
constituents that they voted to improve their lives while maintaining
fiscal responsibility.
I would also like to thank all of my subcommittee members on both
sides of the aisle for helping to produce this bill, and I would like
to thank people who oftentimes don't get recognized for all of the hard
work, sometimes on Saturday nights and Sunday mornings, that goes into
putting a bill together. It is not just the Members that are elected to
serve on this subcommittee and full committee, but we have the
committee staff: Martha Foley of the minority staff; Martin Delgado,
the great, distinguished leader, the clerk of the subcommittee; Maureen
Holohan, Leslie Barrack and Jamie Swafford of the majority staff. In
addition, I would like to thank our detailee, Mike Arnold, and Walt
Smith from Texas A&M back in Texas at College Station from my personal
staff for working hard on this.
I also want to mention some people that I would say have never had
their names mentioned before on the floor of the House, but without
them we could not be here today. They are the ones that helped put this
whole product together: Larry Boarman, Theo Powell, Cathy Edwards,
Linda Muir and the staff of the Government Printing Office.
Mr. Chairman, we refer to this bill as the agriculture bill, but it
goes so much more than assisting basic agriculture. It also supports
rural and economic development, human nutrition, ag exports and land
conservation, as well as the food, drug, and medical safety in this
country. This bill will cover benefits to of every one of your
constituents everyday, no matter what district you represent.
There are some key increases over the fiscal year 2006 spending level
in the bill that include the following: $80 million for bird flu; $24
million for food safety; $11 million for the Commodity Supplemental
Food Program, the budget request proposed to zero out this program; $34
million for the Farm Service Agency, salaries and expenses; $12 million
for farm operating loans; $91 million for the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service; and $20 million for the FDA user-fee programs for
prescription drugs, medical devices, and animal drugs.
Mr. Chairman, I will include at this point in the Record tabular
material relating to the bill.
[[Page H3040]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23MY06.001
[[Page H3041]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23MY06.002
[[Page H3042]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23MY06.003
[[Page H3043]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23MY06.004
[[Page H3044]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23MY06.005
[[Page H3045]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23MY06.006
[[Page H3046]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23MY06.007
[[Page H3047]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23MY06.008
[[Page H3048]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23MY06.009
[[Page H3049]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23MY06.010
[[Page H3050]]
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me first thank you and Mr. Obey, as well as
Chairman Lewis, all of whom I have been pleased to work with on this
bill. In particular it is a pleasure to join the chairman again as we
bring to the floor our second and final agriculture appropriations bill
together. As before, this has been a good process, one in which we have
made substantial progress on many issues.
As I have said before, I want to take a moment to recognize that this
is not only the last time this bill will be considered on the House
floor under Mr. Bonilla's management, but also his last year of service
on our subcommittee. He has served as chairman with distinction and
carried out his responsibilities to this subcommittee with a real sense
of determination and focus. So I thank you, and it has been a pleasure
to work with you.
This is always an important bill, from public health and the FDA, to
rural development and food safety, to environmental conservation and
nutrition assistance, to investing in renewable sources of energy.
The mission of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee is, at its
core, about improving people's lives; and I think the subcommittee has
produced a bill overall that we can be proud of.
There are several areas in particular that have been improved from
the President's request. For one, the bill includes increased funding
for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program and the Specialty Crops
Program on which so many of our farmers rely. The bill restores the
section 515 Housing Program and included $25 million for a National
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program.
In addition, we have turned aside several misguided proposals by the
administration not included in this bill, including proposals that
would have changed funding for the Agriculture Research Institutions
and capped WIC administrative funds.
We also made some progress during the markup. I appreciate the
chairman's willingness to increase funding for the Office of Generic
Drugs, bringing that up to $5 million. This will help to reduce the
backlog of generic drug applications and in turn contribute to reducing
the price of prescription drugs.
I was pleased that the committee accepted an amendment that I offered
to give the FDA the authority to mandate post-market drug studies when
needed. With 65 percent of the post-market studies pending, it is clear
that the system FDA has in place is broken and must be fixed. As such,
giving FDA the authority to mandate post-market drug studies and
authorizing the agency to begin proceedings that would move a drug from
the market, should the drug company refuse to carry out its
responsibility, is a critical part of the drug safety process.
I was also pleased that this subcommittee accepted language
preventing the implementation of a final rule by USDA to allow
processed chicken products from China to enter the United States. We
all know China has massive problems with avian influenza in its chicken
population. Only hours after the Food Safety and Inspection Service
announced it would allow the imports from China, claiming these
products would be safe because they will be fully processed and cooked,
a Tennessee firm announced the recall of more than 20,000 pounds of
breaded chicken due to possible undercooking. Stopping that process
from going forward was a good decision.
I do think that there are some areas where the bill falls short.
While I know we cannot do everything we want to in this bill, I believe
that many Members will be disappointed to see that, for instance, we
could not fund a pilot program to look at the impact of eliminating the
Reduced Price Meal Program that requires children from low-income
working families to pay 40 cents per lunch and 30 cents per breakfast.
If a family qualifies for free WIC benefits, they should qualify for
free school meals as well. I wish we had found the money to make that
pilot program happen, even if only as a pilot program.
I am also disappointed that we failed to substantially increase the
funding for the McGovern-Dole International Food Program which is
funded in this bill at $100 million, an increase of a mere $1 million
over last year's bill and the budget request. This program fights child
hunger in the world's poorest countries, while expanding educational
opportunities for children; and it has a proven track record. It should
have been a priority in this bill.
Lastly, we missed a golden opportunity with this bill to jump-start
the country's energy independence efforts by seriously and aggressively
funding the many programs in this bill that deal with renewable energy.
I offered an amendment that was defeated on a roll call vote of 24-36
to our commitment to renewable energy and rural development by $500
million. It is time to be bold about energy independence; and this bill
is an appropriate place to start doing that, which is why I intend to
offer this amendment again before the full House.
I look forward to debating this bill today, Mr. Chairman, and I want
to say thank you to you and your staff as well as staff on our side of
the aisle for working so hard to put together the bill before us. As I
have said throughout the process, barring any unexpected developments,
it is my intention to support this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the distinguished chairman of
the full committee.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R.
5384, the agriculture appropriations bill for the year 2007. This is
the third of 11 bills the committee plans to bring to the House floor
before the 4th of July break.
I want to especially praise Chairman Bonilla and Ranking Member
DeLauro, as well as members of the Agriculture Subcommittee and their
staff, for the very fine work done on this bill.
In total, this measure provides $18.4 billion in total discretionary
spending. This level represents a decrease, that is a decrease, of $96
million below the FY 2006 enacted level. The bill contains critical
funding to protect health and safety, fulfill our commitment to
important food and nutrition programs and support farmers and ranchers,
as well as rural America.
I would like to make, Mr. Chairman, two additional points about the
measure. First, the bill before us today includes $435 million in
Member-project funding, which is $35 million below, that is, below last
year's House-bill level. It is $277 million below last year's House-
Senate conference report as well.
This bill also terminates eight programs resulting in $414 million in
taxpayer savings; eight programs, $414 million in taxpayer savings.
Mr. Chairman, this agriculture bill is Mr. Bonilla's last bill as
chairman of this subcommittee; and to say the least, this bill is a
very fine product, and it is worthy of our support.
I want to commend Mr. Bonilla and certainly Ms. DeLauro, as well, for
their work on this very fine measure. Indeed, it is a reflection of the
best work of our committee. Mr. Bonilla is to be congratulated for his
service as chairman of the committee.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to renew my comments on something that
is likely to happen here later with respect to the dairy program; but
before I do that, in the unlikely event that anybody in any of the
congressional offices is listening, I hope they understand that there
are at least 50 amendments pending to this bill. If we only take 10
minutes on each of those amendments and if we only have votes on about
half of them, we will be here until about 2 or 3 o'clock in the
morning. So I hope that Members will not expect us to have a schedule
which allows them to go to supper and allows them to do other work
around here and, at the same time, expect the committee to get us out
of here before the wee hours of the morning. If all of these amendments
are offered, that just isn't going to happen.
Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that I want to once again take note of the
[[Page H3051]]
fact that because the Rules Committee chose not to protect a provision
in this bill that is very important to small dairy farmers around the
country, we face the likelihood that a point of order will be lodged
against section 752 of this bill. That section is meant to correct a
major flaw in the authorization bill that was amended last year.
Under existing law, supplemental payments to dairy farmers, the so-
called MILC program, will expire 1 month before the other major
commodities programs expire in the existing farm bill.
{time} 1215
What that means in practical terms is that there will be no dairy
component in the budget baseline when the next farm bill is considered
by the authorizing committee.
If that happens, we are guaranteeing that there will be fewer dollars
in the Federal budget that will be flowing to rural America than would
otherwise be the case. If people think it is a good idea for rural
America to voluntarily relinquish any portion of their share of the
Federal budget, then by all means they should be enthusiastic about the
point of order.
If they do not, then I think they ought to ask the authorizing
committee chairman not to make that point of order. I would point out
that the provision in this bill which extends that MILC program for 1
month so that we can correct that budget baseline problem. I should
point out that that provision is supported by the Midwest Dairy
Coalition, the Northeast Dairy Producers, including Connecticut,
Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont. It is supported by the New York
Farm Bureau, by the National Farmers Union, by the Wisconsin Farm
Bureau, and by a good many other farmers around the country.
Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that if that point of order is
lodged, and if this bill therefore does not carry that correcting
provision, it will not just be dairy farmers who are hurt, it will also
mean that if a dairy program is continued, financing for that program
will have to come out of the base for each of the other farm groups.
That is a great recipe for having a regional war between different
farm groups, and it is a great recipe for having a war between various
commodity groups in the agriculture community. So I would urge the
majority party leadership to prevail upon the chairman of the
Agriculture Committee not to make that point of order, because, if he
does, we are not going to be able to fix this problem and dairy farmers
are going to be at a huge disadvantage when the next farm bill is
written.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlemen from
Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the
committee, Mr. Bonilla, for the great job that he has done, and the
leadership that he has provided. And I thank my friend, Rosa DeLauro,
for all the good work that she has done and the bipartisan cooperation
that we have had on this bill. We don't agree on everything, but we
agree on ag policy and trying to look out for the farmers together, and
all of the various commodities and programs that are in this important
bill. And this is certainly one of the greatest subcommittees in
Congress.
Mr. Chairman, farmers today have lots of challenges, financing. Long-
term financing for farmers, they can't get loans the way business
people can get loans. They have problems with labor. The immigration
issue is the hot issue of the day right now. Well, it has been a hot
issue down on the farm for years as they have tried to get labor who
will go out there in the hot sunshine and pick apples and pick peaches
and pick onions, and trying to work with the H2A program that can be
very difficult to comply with.
And while farmers are trying to work with H2A, along comes legal
services funded by the Federal Government and suing farmers for
technical violations often and not really substantive violations.
They have problems with environmental issues, in that we have very
strict EPA laws, which their international competitors do not always
have. And Ms. Kaptur, our friend from Ohio, often talks to us about
Ohio tomatoes. And yet we know in Mexico they make tomatoes that can be
competitive with those of Ohio tomatoes, but they do not have to follow
the same labor or environmental laws.
Mr. Chairman, that is just one of the examples. And then we talk
about unfair trade practices and what is subsidized and what is not.
And so often the WTO, which is an organization most Americans do not
even know about; yet the farmers, they are very mindful of what the WTO
is up to, because so often the rulings seem to come down against
American farmers.
Mr. Chairman, despite everything that farmers are up against, our
food program and our food supply is the best any world has ever seen,
any nation in the world at any time. Americans spend 11 cents on the
dollar on groceries. We spend 43 cents on the dollar on recreation,
from skiing to jet skiing, to boats, to fishing to buying CDs and going
to movies and shows; we spend 43 cents on the dollar, but only 11 cents
on the dollar for food. And for that, we have fruit all year long. We
have meat in great abundance at low prices all year long. We have, as
Mr. Obey knows well, milk. And there used to be milk shortages all over
the country. And yet we do not have those kinds of shortages anymore.
We do have a very complex, hard-to-explain agriculture system in
America, and yet the product on the shelf in the grocery stores across
America beats all in the world.
We need to all support this bill. It is a bipartisan bill. It is well
thought out, well debated. There are going to be things I am going to
comment on later on.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Marshall).
Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Kingston for all he
has done on behalf of peanuts and milk. In the authorizing committee,
we failed to extend the peanut program storage and handling fees for
the year it needed to be extended, at the end of this farm program. And
we also failed to extend the milk program, that 1 month that is
necessary, according to Mr. Obey and others, to establish an
appropriate baseline where milk is concerned and an appropriate
baseline where peanuts are concerned, peanut storage and handling.
Anticipating that a point of order might be made, Mr. Chairman, and I
am not sure that it would be made by the chairman of the authorizing
committee or someone else, we have put together a letter to the
chairman, Chairman Goodlatte, asking that he support the two bipartisan
amendments made in the appropriations committee with regard to these
two issues, the peanut storage and handling fees issue and the milk
program issue that was spoken about by Mr. Obey.
Mr. Chairman, 26 members of the 46 members of the committee have
signed on. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the real question will be
whether or not somehow the Appropriations Committee is inappropriately
treading on the authority of the authorizing committee. Here you have a
majority of the members of the authorizing committee saying that they
think that the Appropriations Committee is acting properly with regard
to these two issues, and they would request that the point of order be
denied.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the gentlemen from New
Jersey (Mr. Garrett). I now yield to Mr. Garrett.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity
to enter into a colloquy with the gentlemen from Texas, the chairman of
the subcommittee.
Also, before I begin, I just want to thank the chairman for all of
your hard work that you put into the committee and into this bill, and
all of the members of the committee.
And may I also echo the words as far as those members of the
committee and the staff who do not normally get their names mentioned
on the floor for their work; as the former chairman, I know there are
many people behind the scenes that do not get recognized and I
appreciate your recognizing those people of your committee.
Mr. Chairman, at this time I also want to voice my strong support of
the Farm and Ranchland Preservation Program. The chairman may know that
I
[[Page H3052]]
grew up on my family farm in the State of New Jersey; it is the Garden
State. We are the most densely populated State in the country. And for
that reason, trying to preserve open space and farmland was one of the
main reasons why I went into government 12 years ago on the state level
and here in the Congress as well.
And so I support strongly The National Farm and Ranchland
Preservation Program and its work to contain, to preserve
environmentally sensitive pieces of property in the Fifth Congressional
District.
It is my hope that the chairman would continue to work closely with
myself and the Department of Agriculture, so that we can move forward
to see to it that as much of this property can be preserved for future
generations.
Mr. BONILLA. If the gentleman would yield, I thank the gentlemen for
his comments and pledge to work closely with him and the Department of
Agriculture moving forward to see that any eligible environmentally
sensitive farmland is given full and adequate consideration as this
bill continues through the legislative process and as the Department
establishes its priorities for the Farm and Ranchland Preservation
Program for fiscal year 2007.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentlemen for his support.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Bonilla and
Ranking Member DeLauro for their hard work on this bill, particularly
their work on the school meal and WIC program.
While I appreciate the increase in funding, I sincerely hope that we
can do even better in conference on the WIC program and on the school
meal program.
I also appreciate that the committee rejected a number of President
Bush's requests that would have harmed the women and children who
benefit from WIC. The President's proposed cap on nutrition counseling
and on education for WIC recipients would limit both essential services
for WIC families and for the States' abilities to negotiate cost
savings with food producers.
The President also asked to limit WIC eligibility for any Medicaid
recipients. These are only some of the examples that the President
would have listed in his neverending effort to pay for tax cuts for the
wealthiest Americans, with benefit cuts for the most vulnerable
Americans.
As I say, I honor the Chair and the ranking member for not letting
that happen. I am proud to have led a bipartisan effort in opposition
to those proposals, and I thank the committee again for rejecting them.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I thank the committee for its promise to
continue to monitor the WIC caseload to ensure that funding remains
sufficient to meet the needs. I ask the committee to also monitor, as I
will, USDA's implementation of its cost containment regulations.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, can you tell us, please, how much time
remains on the bill.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman has 17\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to I guess reluctantly support the bill. I
have been looking over the provisions, and I think that while I commend
Chairman Bonilla and Ranking Member DeLauro for their work, given the
constraints that they have been placed under, but I do have some
concerns that I would like to raise.
You know, in the last farm bill, 2002 Farm Bill, we made a
significant shift in the biggest increases that we placed in the 2002
Farm Bill were in the conservation programs.
And we have some limitations that have been put in the bill that have
been protected against a point of order, that I have some concerns
about and other people across the country have concerns about.
Our Wetlands Reserve Program, which I think has been one of the most
successful programs that we have implemented and was part of the 2002
farm bill, we are going to be further limiting the level to 144,000
acres.
This is a program that has a substantial backlog. We have a lot of
folks out there that are ready to go and put their land into the
Wetlands Reserve Program and, you know, just does not seem logical that
we would eliminate it given the amount of interest that is out there in
the countryside.
The EQUIP Program was another program that we substantially increased
in the 2002 farm bill. And again, we have many more requests than we
have money and authorization. And we are going to have some further
limitations in that area as well, as well as the CSP program, the WHIP
program and some others.
So I just want to raise my concern about those limitations and I
guess my displeasure from the authorizing committee point of view that
the appropriators would be limiting the work of the Agriculture
Committee that has spent a lot of time looking into them.
{time} 1230
I would also like to follow up on the comments of Mr. Obey regarding
the milk program. Wherever you are at on that particular issue, I think
this does have implications out into the next farm bill.
I know in our part of the country this is a popular program. In the
west it is not popular. But eliminating this baseline is going to make
it more difficult for us as we do the next farm bill next year, and it
could come back to haunt some folks in the dairy area potentially given
how that all plays out.
The peanut provision which also was not protected is something that
was worked out in the last farm bill and is important to a lot of folks
that had to have a substantial change in that program, and I just do
not think it is right to end that program a year early. It would make
more sense, I think, to continue it to the ends of the bill.
I am going to support this bill today. I commend the chairman and the
ranking member for their work, and I look forward to the debate.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Can I ask the gentleman from Texas if he has any
additional speakers.
Mr. BONILLA. At this time I do not.
Ms. DeLAURO. Neither do we.
With that, my comment is I think that we will just proceed to the
amendments, and I hope that with that process we can make the bill
better.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, once again, just to comment on how many
prudent recommendations were made to put this bill together and it has
been a very good product that we have come to the floor with today, and
we hope that all Members would support it without any amendments.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5384, the Fiscal
Year 2007 Agriculture Appropriations Act. In particular, I am pleased
that funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, or CSFP, has
been restored in this bill.
In yet another example of the Administration's upside-down
priorities, the President's request proposed eliminating CSFP. Last
year, in Michigan alone, almost 76,000 low income seniors, mothers and
children received much-needed, nutritious food each month thanks to
this funding and the hard work of organizations like Focus: Hope in
Detroit.
I thank the Committee for responding to the outpouring of grassroots
support for CSFP, and refusing to do away with this important program.
The bill before us includes $118.3 million for CSFP, an increase of $11
million from the current level. Following the President's
recommendation would have literally taken food from the mouths of
seniors and children across the country. I hope our action here not
only protects CSFP, but also sends a message to the President that cuts
like this are not acceptable.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, in accordance with earmark reform
proposals currently under consideration in the House and Senate, I
would like to place into the Record a listing of Congressionally-
directed projects in my home state of Idaho that are contained within
the report to this bill. These are projects that I asked the
Agriculture Subcommittee to consider, both this year and in previous
years, and I am grateful for their inclusion in this bill.
[[Page H3053]]
I'd like to take just a few minutes to describe why I supported these
projects and why they are valuable to the nation and its taxpayers.
It is important to remember that the vast majority of these funds go
to two entities.
First, the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service, CSREES, grants included below are targeted to our nation's
Land Grant Colleges. In the case of Idaho, these funds are used by the
University of Idaho to conduct research on a variety of crops important
to the Pacific Northwest. I have also supported research in Washington
and Oregon because their research is invaluable to my constituents as
well.
In assessing the value of these requests, there are some important
considerations that must be made. World labor standards and costs are
far below those of the U.S. Our Nation's farmers are subjected to far
more stringent environmental regulations than those of many of our
competitors. Input costs in the U.S. far surpass those of other
nations. And energy prices, including farm diesel, are rising
dramatically.
So how can a U.S. farmer remain competitive in a global market?
Through greater productivity and efficiency, increased yields, and
better defenses against diseases. These are the very things that
agriculture research funding delivers for U.S. producers--and for U.S.
consumers.
If you want to rely on foreign nations for our food in the way we
rely on them for our oil, then by all means eliminate these important
agriculture research programs. But if you believe, as I do, that
maintaining a domestic capability to produce our food is a national
security issue, then you ought to support these research programs and
fight for their continuation.
The second entity that receives the bulk of these funds is the
Agriculture Research Service, ARS, and its stations across rural
America. In Idaho, these institutions are conducting vital research
into some of our most important crops--sugar, potatoes, small fruits,
and aquaculture. I encourage all of my colleagues to visit an ARS
station to see firsthand the value of this research. If you do, you
will learn that these researchers are doing amazing things with very
limited budgets. These projects are usually small in terms of their
funding, but the benefits that flow from that research cannot be
measured in dollars alone.
Two of the projects below are funded through the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service, APHIS. These two programs are critical to
combating brucellosis in bison and cattle and in assisting ranchers
whose livestock are harassed and killed by predators like wolves.
The Greater Yellowstone Brucellosis funding is particularly critical
to my home State of Idaho. Idaho recently lost its brucellosis free
status and these funds are critical to establishing a management plan
that will allow Idaho to regain its brucellosis free status.
The Tri-State Predator control funding is hardly a handout to
ranchers. The federal government forced wolf reintroduction on Idaho
and other western states and it is duty-bound to pay for the deadly and
gruesome impacts of this decision.
The final project on this list is the Idaho One-Plan. The Idaho One-
Plan is a unique collaboration of agencies, industries, and
associations dedicated to assisting Idaho farmers and ranchers in their
continuing natural resource stewardship responsibilities. The program
was developed jointly with state and federal resource agencies, the
University of Idaho Cooperative Extension program, the Environmental
Protection Agency, and local commodity groups. It's a successful
program that has enormous value to not only the Idaho agriculture
community and the environment, but to other states that might be
interested in a similar collaborative process.
Mr. Chairman, any effort to remove these projects from the bill would
not only result in zero savings to taxpayers, it would stop dead these
important efforts to enhance and protect our nation's food supply.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide a list of Congressionally-
directed projects in my region and an explanation of my support for
them.
1. ARS aquaculture research--Aberdeen ($628,843) pg. 17;
2. CSREES NW Small Fruits Research--ID, WA, OR ($443,000)
pg. 36;
3. ARS Potato Breeding--Aberdeen ($365,156) pg. 18;
4. ARS Sugarbeet Research--Kimberly ($702,592) pg. 19;
5. ARS Sustainable Aquaculture Feeds--Aberdeen ($99,000)
pg. 19;
6. ARS Viticulture--Corvallis, OR ($852,861) pg. 19;
7. CSREES Grain Legume Plant Pathologist--Pullman, WA
($244,125) pg. 20;
8. CSREES Alternative Crops--Canola ($1,175,000) pg. 33;
9. CSREES Aegilops Cylindricum--Goatgrass (WA, ID)
($355,000) pg. 34;
10. CSREES Cool Season Food Legume Research (ID, WA, ND)
($564,000) pg. 34;
11. CSREES Grass Seed Cropping/or Sustainable Agriculture
(WA, ID, OR) ($450,000) pg. 35;
12. CSREES Increasing Shelf Life of Agricultural
Commodities ($863,000) pg. 35;
13. CSREES Potato Research (national program) ($1,497,000)
pg. 36;
14. CSREES STEEP III ($640,000) pg. 36;
15. CSREES Wood Utilization (multi-state) ($6,371,000) pg.
36;
16. APHIS Greater Yellowstone Brucellosis--ID, WY, MT
($10,455,000) pg. 72;
17. APHIS Tri-State Predator Control ($1,324,000) pg. 74;
18. NRCS Idaho One-Plan ($200,000) pg. 87.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Milk
Income Loss Contract Program (MILC). Created under the 2002 Farm Bill,
the MILC program has been a major success for Wisconsin dairy farmers.
I believe it is inherently unfair to set the expiration date of the
MILC program one month before the expiration of other farm bill
programs. MILC should be on a level playing field with all other
commodity programs, so that it will be dealt with equitably under the
2007 Farm Bill.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the FY 2007
Agriculture Appropriations bill. I am especially pleased with the
funding levels prescribed for the Domestic Food Assistance programs
such as the Commodity Supplemental Food Program CSFP) and the Women,
Infants and Children (WIC) nutritional programs.
This year, the President proposed eliminating CSFP as part of his
plan to streamline government services. Participants in this program
were supposed to move to either the Food Stamps program or the WIC
program. I disagreed with this proposal, and that is why I am pleased
that my colleagues on the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee
chose to ignore the elimination proposal and instead increased funding
for this program by $11 million above last year's level.
Under the House-passed bill, CSFP will get $118.3 million in fiscal
2007. It is my understanding and hope that the Senate will include a
similar amount in its appropriations bill and that future conferees
will protect this valuable program from elimination.
More than 2,000 seniors in my district depend on this important
supplemental food program, which provides them a box of food staples
once a month to seniors who are at or below 130 percent of the poverty
level. Pregnant, breast feeding and postpartum women, infants and
children up to age six also are eligible for CSFP if they are at or
below 185 percent of federal poverty guidelines. For young children,
the program is used as a bridge between their eligibility for WIC and
their eligibility for free school lunches, which generally happens
around age 6.
There is no doubt that CSFP works. In Minnesota, about 15,000
participants--85 percent of them seniors--receive a box of food at the
beginning of each month. The box is about the size of a banana box and
weighs about 60 pounds. Each box contains about $55 worth of pantry
staples such as canned vegetables, fruit and meat, as well as
evaporated milk, juice, rice and pasta. The foods are nutritionally
balanced and approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Minnesota receives about $3.2 million each year to purchase these
foods and deliver them to four food banks throughout the state.
Volunteers then deliver the boxes to centralized distribution sites and
in some cases to the front doors of home-bound seniors.
In Southeastern Minnesota, the Channel One Food Distribution Center
in Rochester, delivers CSFP food packages to 1,750 participants in a 13
county area. The average income for a senior receiving CSFP assistance
in this area is a meager $8,846 a year or $737 a month. That's why CSFP
is so vital for our nation's low-income seniors, particularly those in
rural America.
Seniors like Harriet Salisbury from Ceylon, Minnesota; Elsa Suter of
Fairmont, Minnesota, and Edward Levy of Brownsdale, Minnesota, need
these vital food packages. When the Administration proposed eliminating
CSFP, these seniors took pen and paper in hand and let me know exactly
what they thought about that proposal. They told me CSFP was their
``lifeline,'' and some even begged me to save this vital program from
elimination.
Today, I am here to tell these seniors and thousands more across our
nation that I know how important CSFP is to them, and that I will fight
to save this vital program from elimination.
In conclusion, I want to thank Chairman Bonilla for his continued
support for CSFP.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I will vote for the bill H.R.
5384, the ``Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, Appropriations Act of 2007.''
While the bill is a dramatic improvement from the request made by the
Bush Administration it still does not fully meet the needs of rural
Colorado. I'm disappointed about that, but the fact is that the federal
government is being forced to do more with less because of the budget
resolution the Republican leadership forced through the House.
[[Page H3054]]
I am pleased the bill provides support for research programs
important to Colorado State University, including research on
infectious diseases and ultraviolet radiation monitoring. I am also
pleased provisions of the legislation adequately funds important
programs for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency grants which can
provide much needed resources for rural economic development to
communities throughout the Eastern Plains, Western Slope and San Luis
Valley of Colorado.
While there are good things about this bill it does have its
shortcomings. Even though attempts were made to the conservation
provisions, more needs to be done to address the continued under
funding of these important programs. I am also particularly
disappointed this legislation does not address the continued delay of
the implementation of a mandatory country of origin labeling (COOL) for
products such as meat and produce. The shortsightedness of the
committee denies Colorado ranchers and farmers a wonderful resource to
market their products and provide consumers a clear choice in the
products they purchase.
I am hopeful the Senate will build on the work of the House passed
legislation so an even stronger bill can be sent to the President.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule the bill shall be considered for amendment under
the 5-minute rule.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those
amendments will be considered read.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 5384
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,
2007, 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, $5,499,000: 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. Kucinich
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Kucinich:
Page 2, line 9, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(reduced by $1)''.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, the Kucinich Organic Food Amendment
strikes $1 of salary from the Secretary's office to raise an objection
to the removal of consumer public interest representation from the
National Organic Standards Board.
What is organic food? Organic food is produced in a sustainable
manner without pesticides, herbicides, or artificial fertilizers.
Organic food production improves the environment and delivers a safe
food to our children.
Our fields and streams are relied upon to grow our food; therefore,
we must protect these assets with a sustainable agricultural system.
Organic food has proven itself commercially viable. It is a multi-
billion dollar industry. It has improved the sustainability of our
agricultural system. But organic foods cannot be distinguished by how
they look, taste, or smell. Consumers can only rely on an organic
label. Consumers need to trust that label if they are going to pay the
premium for organic food.
The National Organic Standards Board was formed in 1990 as part of
the 1990 farm bill's Organic Food Production Act. Its 15 members are
meant to assist the Secretary of Agriculture in developing organic food
standards. Members have 5-year terms and the board is comprised of four
farmers/growers; two handlers/processors; one retailer; one scientist;
three consumer public advocates; three environmentalists; and one
certifying agent who sits on various committees.
This board is, among other things, tasked with ensuring that
consumers can trust the organic food label. There appears to be an
effort to undercut consumer public interest representation on the
board. Led by Consumers Union, several food safety and public interest
organizations raised objections to two recent appointments to the
consumer public interest slots because those slots went to industry
representatives. One occupant is a food industry lobbyist for General
Mills and the other occupant is a consultant to the organic dairy
industry. Fortunately, the General Mills lobbyist was responsible and
resigned. Unfortunately, the dairy consultant remains on the board.
Now, the Consumers Union letter stated in part: ``These individuals
could not reflect the specific interests of the consumers or the
public, but rather the interests of the industry. For example, General
Mills is a large corporation. It has a vested interest in the sales of
organic food products which is in conflict with representing a consumer
public interest position on the National Organic Standards Board.''
When the USDA was challenged by the Center For Science in the Public
Interest, the USDA staff for the National Organic Standards Board
responded with: ``It was the Secretary's decision to pick,'' talking
about the General Mills representative, ``and he didn't want to pick
anyone else.''
Clearly, the USDA has signaled its intention to leave the consumer
slot vacant for the rest of the year. To ensure consumers can trust the
organic label, the Secretary should fill the slots with consumer
representatives. This amendment would simply remind the USDA that
Congress, which created the National Organic Standards Board, believes
that the consumer public interest representation on the National
Organic Standards Board is critical to setting organic food standards
that are credible and trustworthy.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey.
Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me simply say that
I appreciate his comments, especially in light of the fact that last
year in the conference on this bill after the conference was gaveled to
a close, the conference committee then made arbitrary and anonymous
changes in the definition of organic foods without a vote of the
conference. So it seems to me that the gentleman is correct that we
need to be vigilant in terms of who is trying to manipulate their
definition of what represents a high organic standard.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. KUCINICH. Reclaiming my time, the comments of the gentleman from
Wisconsin make it very clear that Congress has a role here in affirming
the position of consumer representatives on the National Organic
Standards Board. It was Congress that created this board. It was
Congress that wanted to ensure the integrity of the organic label. So I
am asking my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to protect the integrity of the
organic food label.
I would once again say that the Consumers Union has taken this
position that they believe that the integrity of the consumer public
interest positions have been compromised by the appointment.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that there is currently one
vacancy on the National Organic Standards Board, and I understand the
gentleman is very concerned about this issue and USDA is seeking
nominations for the position. There was some advertisement that went
out to these positions in the spring time. The vacancy closes July 14,
and it will be filled. So the way we see the process going, that is,
the gentleman's issues are being addressed, we see this as a non-issue,
and we would hope that the gentleman would withdraw the amendment.
If there is some opposition to the way the process works, we can
understand that; but the process is moving forward and the board
positions will be filled in a timely manner according to our
information.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BONILLA. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. KUCINICH. Would the gentleman endorse the statement of concern
that I made so that the appointment would truly go to a consumer
representative?
Mr. BONILLA. I cannot advocate or endorse a particular group's choice
for the position. That is not my role.
[[Page H3055]]
Mr. KUCINICH. If I may, if the gentleman would continue to yield, it
is not my intention to ask you to endorse a particular person or a
particular group's nominee. The spirit of this amendment is to protect
the organic label through making sure that there is a consumer
representative.
I would ask if the gentleman would be willing to work with me to make
sure as we move through this process that, in fact, we will have a real
consumer representative, whoever he or she may be, and not someone who
is necessarily part of the industry. The industry does have
representatives, and I have no quarrel with that; but consumer
representatives ought to be as such. If the gentleman would agree to
work with me on it, I would be happy to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. BONILLA. I would be happy to work with the gentleman on this;
but, of course, I cannot stand here and guarantee the outcome.
Mr. KUCINICH. I understand, but the chairman, if we work together, I
think that the consumers would have a better feeling that with the
Chair being involved there is an opportunity that at least we could
address the issue. I am not asking you to guarantee the outcome, but if
I have your word that you will make an effort, that is good enough for
me.
Mr. BONILLA. I would be happy to do that. I have a tremendous amount
of respect for the gentleman. There have been many unrelated issues
that we have worked on together in the past, and we would be happy to
do that.
Mr. KUCINICH. In consideration of the chairman giving me his word
that we will work together on this, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent to withdraw my amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
The Acting 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), $11,226,000.
National Appeals Division
For necessary expenses of the National Appeals Division,
$14,795,000.
Office of Budget and Program Analysis
For necessary expenses of the Office of Budget and Program
Analysis, $8,479,000.
Homeland Security Staff
For necessary expenses of the Homeland Security Staff,
$954,000.
Office of the Chief Information Officer
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief
Information Officer, $16,936,000.
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, $68,971,000, of which $4,494,127 is
for rural development-related activities, $14,494,273 is for
Natural Resource Conservation Service-related activities, and
$49,982,600 is for Farm Service Agency-related activities, 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: Provided further,
That of the funds provided under this section, $410,000 shall
be available to process data to acquire fourband digital
color infrared imagery of the entire State of New Mexico.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Weiner
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Weiner:
Page 3, line 12, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(reduced by $25,576,000)''.
Page 3, line 13, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(reduced by $1,666,523)''.
Page 3, line 14, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(reduced by $5,374,803)''.
Page 3, line 15, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(reduced by $18,534,674)''.
Page 19, line 8, insert after the first dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $23,000,000)''.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, there are a great many people who are
watching with rapt attention what we do in this appropriations bill.
There are many people watching, well, many might be a strong word, but
there are some people watching on C-SPAN and many of our colleagues are
very interested to see the outcome of this bill. But I can tell you
there is a whole group of other creatures that really don't mind at all
what we do here because they are going about the business of ravaging
our economy.
I am talking about the invasive insects, the invasive species like
the Asian longhorn beetle which because of the lack of funding in this
budget and in past budgets are on course to do an estimated $268
billion worth of damage to the economy. It is insects like the Asian
longhorn beetle that is eating away at Illinois and Pennsylvania and
New York and New Jersey. It is insects like the emerald ash borer that
my colleague Mr. Schwarz is so concerned about and folks in Indiana and
Ohio. The sudden oak death disease in California and Oregon, all kinds
of different insects are right now creating havoc in our economy.
We have over the course of time been frankly funding less and less
and less for these invasive species. Sometimes it is a matter of
surveillance like it is with the Asian longhorn beetle. You have to
find it in order to stamp it out. Sometimes it is a matter of taking
steps like we did successfully in Illinois to poison these pests before
they do any more damage.
{time} 1245
But I am going to tell you what the cost is if we do not pass the
Weiner-Schwarz-Crowley-Maloney amendment today.
These insects will continue to move from neighborhood to
neighborhood, city to city, State to State. This very same insect,
which has cost over 4,000 trees in New York City, yes, Mr. Obey, a tree
does grow in Brooklyn; more than 4,000 trees have been eaten by the
Asian longhorned beetle. It is on a path going north. Think of what is
north of New York City. It is the Adirondacks. It is Vermont. This pest
likes maple trees more than we like maple syrup. If it starts to infect
that part of the U.S. economy, there will be no stopping it.
But we do have a plan now. If we provide about $23 million, it does
not eliminate the problem overnight, but it does put us on a glide
course to stopping this problem and these pests in their tracks.
This is a moment. This is kind of like a ripple in a pond. Right now,
the problem is relatively concentrated. This is what it looks like in
New York City. It started about 3 years ago, just in this neighborhood
of Greenpoint, and now it is moving further and further and further
out. At the same time that is happening, we have been reducing our
funding, and the President has underfunded this bill appreciably.
My amendment is very simple. It would take $23 million from the
common computing account and move it into this line which would help
stamp out this bug and so many others. There is a list of States that
this impacts, everything from the southern U.S. where the cactus moth
is, all the way up to the northeast where the Asian longhorned beetle
is, and Mr. Schwarz is going to talk about the effect it is having on
Michigan.
Look, I want to upgrade the computers at the Department of
Agriculture as much as anyone, but a slow computer is the least of our
problems when up against this fellow. I want to tell you, as dangerous
as this bug is, in all truth, this is not life size. It is a little bit
smaller than this, but this bug will continue plowing away through our
trees. They have already eaten 4,000 trees in New York City alone, and
the only way to stop it after a while is just to raise entire forests.
We simply cannot do that.
In conclusion, let me just say this, Mr. Chairman, we have shown that
when the office of APHIS at the Department of Agriculture goes into a
problem like they did with the boll weevil, jumps into a problem like
they did with the Asian longhorned beetle in Illinois, we can stop this
problem, and we can do it for relatively pennies on the dollar.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Am I allowed to
reserve time?
[[Page H3056]]
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Miller of Florida). No.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion then, this is a chance to
spend $23 million to save us having to spend $268 million.
I urge you to vote ``yes'' on the Weiner-Schwarz-Maloney-Crowley
amendment and stamp out the Asian longhorned beetle and the other
invasive species.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman raises a very good issue that deserves
attention, but we have done our absolute best to fund eradication and
control of plant pests in the bill before you today that we are
presenting. The overall total for plant pests is $115 million, which is
$16 million over last year's level.
The Asian longhorned beetle is at the President's request of $20
million; the glassy winged sharpshooter is at $24 million; emerald ash
borer, $20 million, more than doubling last year's level of $8 million;
citrus response is $39 million; sudden oak death, doubled from last
year to $6 million; and the list goes on and on.
Eradication and control of these pests is also supported by emergency
funding from the Commodity Credit Corporation at the discretion of the
Secretary. The emerald ash borer control just received $7.5 million
from CCC last month.
As for the offset of this amendment, it is completely irresponsible
to cut funding to farmers, rural areas and conservation programs for
this gentleman's purpose.
I would imagine that it would not just be me, but there would be
Members from all across America that are sensitive to the cuts that are
being proposed in this amendment. It is not just about one district.
This is about national priorities.
If the gentleman wishes to look in his own district for offsets, New
York City benefits greatly from the programs funded by this bill. I
heard from you and others that funding for the Commodity Supplemental
Fielding Program was a critical need. This bill includes $118 million
for that program, which the President attempted to zero out. Of that
amount, New York City receives $7.8 million and about 30,000 people
receive food as a result. Would the gentleman propose that funding for
that program be cut to fund beetle eradication since there is a
parochial interest in taking money from one place and putting it in
another?
The gentleman could also propose cuts in funding for WIC, the feeding
program that we all care about and try to take care of every year for
at-risk women and children, to fund this priority. This bill before us
today includes over $5 billion of WIC funding. New York receives about
$200 million of that funding every year for eligible women, infants and
children. Why are beetles more important? What is the priority?
The point is that there are a lot of choices that you have to make in
putting a bill like this together, and we made the choices that we feel
are best for this country and have been fair to every State. So I would
ask Members to oppose the amendment when it comes for a moment.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Weiner-Schwarz
amendment to boost funding for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service by $23 million to fight invasive species nationwide, all across
our country, and this additional funding that we are requesting is
measured, it is responsible. It is the difference between what APHIS
tell us they need to eradicate invasive species and what this bill
contains.
My good friend on the other side of the aisle calls this a New York
issue. This is not a New York issue. This is across the country, and it
addresses not only the Asian longhorned beetle, but the emerald ash
borer, the sudden death oak disease, the cactus moth that is in the
gulf region, the boll weevil that is in the south and has destroyed a
lot of the cotton industry, and again, this is not what we are
requesting. It is what the professionals are requesting.
If we are able to stop it in New York or Chicago; Chicago has
practically eradicated the Asian longhorned beetle. Believe me, you do
not want this moving across the country. It is a terrible, terrible
bug. I have got one right here, and it is only about an inch long with
white spots on it. It does not look that dangerous, but if it gets into
a tree, it will completely destroy the tree.
It first appeared in Greenpoint, Brooklyn, in my district, and we did
not detect it, and literally, we had to chop down every single tree in
a park and throughout the neighborhood. We are now trying to contain it
and to keep it out of Central Park. It has moved into New Jersey. If we
are able to contain it in Chicago and New Jersey and New York, then you
will not have this problem.
Again, we are not just talking about the Asian longhorned beetle. We
are talking about all invasive species, and it is the amount that is
requested by the professionals in the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service.
So this is a responsible bill. Regrettably, in New York, we have had
to chop down over 4,000 trees; 27,000 trees have been chopped down
across the country, and this is really an unacceptable price to pay,
and that is why we need to pass this amendment which will provide more
funding to fight these invasive species.
I tell you, it is a responsible request. We are just backing up what
the agency is asking for, and this is a national problem. If we are
able to contain it in Chicago and New Jersey, then you will not have
the problem, and as I said, it also funds all of the other areas such
as the sudden oak death and the emerald ash borer. I yield the
remainder of my time to my colleague and friend from New York who has
worked so hard on this issue, and it is so critical to all of New York
City and State but to your States, too.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. MALONEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman.
This was passed on a bipartisan level, a similar bump-up amendment, 2
years ago. I just want to respond to the chairman's suggestion.
There is no doubt about it, the chairman makes some very difficult
choices and I think did a very admirable job, but he read a long list
of programs we do not take the money from. It should be clear where it
comes from.
It comes from computer upgrades, computer upgrades, infrastructure,
Department of Agriculture, a very worthy thing to do, no doubt about
it, but if we do not wipe out these invasive species, they are going to
wipe us out. The vector is like this. It is a wider and wider challenge
with each additional year.
I believe that we need to have the highest technology we can in all
of our agencies, but it is a matter of waiting another year to upgrade
computers rather than trees.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if we do not fell
this beetle and other invasive species, they will continue to fell our
trees across our country.
I have an example here from APHIS of the beetle and what to look for
if it goes to your States so you will know about it, and I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment. This is a bipartisan amendment,
and this is about the health and welfare of our economy, our
environment.
It has cost us zillions of dollars to stop this beetle. We need to
stop it now or it is only go to cause more economic and environmental
damage across our country.
So I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this
important amendment.
Mr. SCHWARZ of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, the emerald ash borer started in the State of Michigan,
in southeast Michigan, probably another unwanted import from someplace
in Southeast Asia where it does not affect the ash species, only
apparently in North America, but it has now killed tens of millions of
ash trees in the Midwest, and the destruction continues.
It affects the baseball bat industry, baseball bats are made from
ash; the nursery industry; Native American culture, basket weaving;
hardwood flooring and furniture industry; beautification projects; et
cetera. It has moved out from southeast Michigan now to central
Michigan into the northern
[[Page H3057]]
part of the State and into the upper peninsula, Ohio and Indiana and,
unfortunately with some nursery trees, into the State of Virginia as
well.
It is expected, if we do not go after this effectively and
aggressively, that all the ash trees east of the Mississippi River will
soon be destroyed by the emerald ash borer. For that reason, I support
the Weiner-Schwarz amendment. I am hopeful that the chairman will as
well.
Michigan State University in my State is doing a great deal of
research and trying to find an easier way than the methods now used to
exterminate this pest. That has not been done yet, and as a result, all
of the ash trees in the United States, but especially those east of the
Mississippi, are at risk.
I would say this. We appreciate the $20 million. The $20 million is
not quite enough, and I do not think, unless you live in that part of
the country, one understands the magnitude of what is going on with the
emerald ash borer.
If we cannot pass our amendment, I would hope the chairman would
consider changing the report language in the bill to include the lower
peninsula of Michigan as well as the upper peninsula and Indiana and
Ohio. For some reason yet unknown to me, the lower peninsula of
Michigan is not in that language, but in any event, the emerald ash
borer, which is the reason I am here and the reason I so strongly
support this amendment, is something that has to be eradicated. If it
is not eradicated, every ash tree in the United States itself will be
eradicated.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I rise in support of the Weiner-Schwarz amendment. I want to thank my
colleague from New York (Mr. Weiner) for all his hard work on this
important issue on attacking invasive species.
Many people wonder why members of the New York City delegation would
be up here on the Agricultural bill, but the issue of invasive species
is a serious one for Members from rural, suburban and urban areas as
well.
For New York City, the pest in question is the Asian longhorned
beetle, and quite frankly, if the Asian longhorned beetle were this
big, we would not be having this debate right now. We would all be
putting more than $48 million per year towards eradicating it. But it
is much smaller. It is about one-and-a-half inches to 2 inches in
length.
It has been in Queens County since 1999, where I represent. The Asian
longhorned beetle has had devastating effects on trees in my home
County of Queens but also of Brooklyn, the Bronx, Manhattan, as well as
parts of Chicago and New Jersey.
{time} 1300
I know this pest has been depriving the residents of my constituency
in my district of precious shade, green space, and natural beauty
provided by a variety of trees. This issue is particularly serious in
an area where trees and shades are at a premium, in the County of
Queens. We have lost almost half of the trees that have been lost in
New York City.
But besides attacking urban area trees, scientists have stated that
the Asian longhorned beetle is a real threat to the hardwood trees of
America; and if left unchecked, this pest could be more threatening to
our Nation's trees and forests than the Dutch elm disease, the gypsy
moth caterpillar, the chestnut blight combined. This beetle would be
devastating to our timber industry, but let me go to our homes and to
the breakfast table. This invasive species can have a direct impact on
the maple syrup industry here in America. Imagine, pancakes without
real maple syrup. That is what this bug represents to America right
now.
On this point, I want to thank again the Chair and the ranking member
for including report language in this bill recognizing the real threat
of the Asian longhorned beetle. The report states: ``The Asian
longhorned beetle threatens all hardwood trees, and is of great concern
to the northeast, particularly in New York and New Jersey.''
When this pest was first discovered, I called for the assistance of
my colleagues in this Chamber and you all responded. I want to
acknowledge the great work of then-Chairman Skeen and now Chairman
Bonilla, and then-Ranking Member Kaptur and now Ranking Member DeLauro
in working with me and the City of New York to try to address this
issue.
I remember visiting the Heinz family of Ridgewood, Queens, who lost
some of their precious trees to this pest in 1999. Due to our hard work
here in Washington, we were able to fund investigators who searched the
trees to look for the beetle and worked towards eliminating the problem
in this particular neighborhood. We were able to replace those trees.
Green space and trees are a vital component to the quality of life of
my constituents both in Queens and the Bronx and all the outer
boroughs, including Manhattan. We can fight this invasive species and
other pests that plague our country, like the emerald ash borer, sudden
oak death, cactus moth and boll weevil, by passing this Weiner-Schwarz
amendment today.
In addition to their past support for battling the beetle, I also
want to thank Chairman Bonilla and Ranking Member DeLauro for including
a provision in their bill granting the Secretary of the USDA discretion
to use Commodity Credit Corporation funds to combat the beetle. While
this provision is important, it cannot replace the need for this
amendment, as over the past several years OMB has not approved CCC
funding to combat this beetle and work towards its total eradication.
That is why I am supporting this amendment today to provide a $23
million increase to APHIS this year to more effectively combat invasive
species in our country. Please support this amendment. It will benefit
our constituents in almost every State in the country. In fact, I would
argue every State, if you eat pancakes in the morning.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
I rise for the purpose of a colloquy with the chairman. I want to
thank you for the good work you and Ranking Member DeLauro have done on
this bill and all the good work you have done for agriculture, much of
which is manifested in this bill.
Mr. Chairman, thank you in particular for the interest that you have
paid in regard to the wine industry, which is very important not only
to my district but to the entire State of California, now a nearly $50
billion annual industry in California. I know that you took the time to
come out and see it firsthand from the ground up, and that is very much
appreciated.
Mr. Chairman, on page 22 of the House report, it directs and approves
the reprogramming of available construction funds away from certain
facilities. The report further states: ``This reprogramming will be
used to offset construction costs for other Federal facilities in those
States.''
I would like to get clarification, Mr. Chairman, that this language
is not intended to imply that the committee has decided that these
other projects are unworthy facilities or that the committee has
determined that construction funding is no longer warranted.
Mr. BONILLA. If the gentleman will yield, I appreciate the
gentleman's inquiry. The bill ensures that previously appropriated
funds for planning and design of a new facility will continue to be
available. This reprogramming is not intended to signify that
construction funds are no longer needed.
Let me also add that I appreciate the gentleman's remarks on my
interest in the industry. I have enjoyed my touring of the gentleman's
region of California and also in Washington and would look forward at
some point to returning. I plan to continue supporting the industry for
as long as I am here.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look
forward to working with you and your staff on this and other matters
that are important to this region in the future. We would love to get
you back out there to see the parts of the industry that you didn't get
a chance to see, and I appreciate your continued interest and hard work
on behalf of this industry.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
[[Page H3058]]
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Butterfield
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Butterfield:
Page 3, line 12, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
Page 3, line 14, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
Page 36, line 21, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
Page 36, line 22, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer this amendment
today on behalf of the 23 rural counties that I represent in eastern
North Carolina, and I might say that we are also the 15th poorest
district in the Nation. I offer this amendment on behalf of the small
and low-income and underserved rural communities all across America.
Mr. Chairman, before I continue with offering this amendment, I would
like to say what a fine job that you and your staff have done on this
bill. You were very courteous to me when I discussed this amendment
with you a few minutes ago, and I thank you so very much. I also would
like to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their spirit of
bipartisanship on this committee.
Mr. Chairman, it is my intention to support the underlying bill. This
amendment is offered to respectfully bring attention to this particular
area of need.
If an individual is driving along interstate highway 95, and many of
my colleagues when they travel south will travel that route, if you are
driving along this interstate highway and you find yourself in an
unfortunate collision, the odds are very likely that the emergency
vehicles that respond to your situation were financed through the
Community Facilities Account in Rural Development.
In all likelihood, the fire station and the police station and other
facilities in the rural community that support these vehicles came from
this account. Community Facilities, or CF as we call it, provides low-
interest, long-term loans to rural towns and cities for buildings and
emergency vehicles and other items. These loans are a net positive to
the Federal Government over the life of the loan, and they have an
exceptionally low default rate because the recipient is a local
governmental entity. Because the funding is leveraged, a $5 million
increase in this account will result in approximately $28 million in
increased lending to local counties, cities, and towns.
Mr. Chairman, I realize that funding is tight this fiscal year. We
all know that. But a small amount of money will allow a
disproportionately large amount of lending to small communities across
America to develop critical infrastructure that will save lives. So on
behalf of the rural communities across America, I urge the adoption of
this amendment.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.
The amendment proposes to cut funding for computers and information
technology for NRCS and to add funding for the Rural Community
programs.
The gentleman did not include this funding level as a priority to the
subcommittee prior to this bill coming to the floor. The bill provides
over $49 million for the Rural Community programs, which is an increase
of $6 million over the President's request.
We had to make some tough decisions within our funding allocation,
and I do not believe we should cut the Natural Resources Conservation
Service to provide an additional increase for the Rural Community
programs. So we have dealt with this issue in the committee, and we
feel like we have done the best we can. Therefore, I rise to oppose
this amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. 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, $5,991,000: Provided, That no funds made available
by this appropriation may be obligated for FAIR Act or
Circular A-76 activities until the Secretary has submitted to
the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress
and the Committee on Government Reform of the House of
Representatives a report on the Department's contracting out
policies, including agency budgets for contracting out.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, $836,000.
Office of Civil Rights
For necessary expenses of the Office of Civil Rights,
$22,650,000.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration
For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Administration, $736,000.
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, $209,814,000, to
remain available until expended, of which $155,851,000 shall
be available for payments to the General Services
Administration for rent and the Department of Homeland
Security for building security: Provided, That amounts which
are made available for space rental and related costs for the
Department of Agriculture in this Act may be transferred
between such appropriations to cover the costs of additional,
new, or replacement space 15 days after notice thereof is
transmitted to the Appropriations Committees of both Houses
of Congress.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota:
Page 5, line 15, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(reduced by $500,000)''.
Page 13, line 6, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $500,000)''.
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, let me first of all thank the
chairman of the committee and the great committee itself for the
wonderful job they are doing with a very difficult task in a tight
budget year of balancing so many priorities, and I commend them on the
job that they have done.
I do rise today as someone who did not live in a town of more than
500 until after I graduated from high school. I understand the unique
challenges that our rural communities face, and one of those challenges
that has emerged in the last few years is the growing shortfall of
qualified veterinarians serving in rural practice.
This shortage is particularly troubling because vets provide critical
services that help make our country's food security and disease
management systems the envy of the world. Veterinarians in rural
communities are our front line of defense against biosecurity
outbreaks, like avian influenza, SARS, BSE, West Nile virus, and
others.
The need to prevent such outbreaks and identify new biohazards before
they endanger our food supply makes it crucial that we have qualified
vets working in our rural communities. However, over the last few
years, the rising cost of veterinary education has led to a critical
shortfall of new vets entering into practice in lower-paying
underserved areas.
{time} 1315
According to the American Veterinary Medical Association, in 2005,
the average new vet had over $88,000 in debt from their education, and
more than one-third of the graduates had debt over $100,000. As a
result, new vets face loan repayments that amount to
[[Page H3059]]
nearly a third of their monthly salaries, forcing many to go into
higher-paying smaller animal practices instead of the large animal,
food-supply related service in our rural areas.
Worse yet, statistics show that the shortage of food-supply vets is
growing by 4 percent a year with an anticipated 13 percent shortage for
cattle and swine veterinarians and a 19 percent shortage for vets
involved in Federal animal inspections.
To address this shortfall, in December 2003, the National Veterinary
Medical Service Act was signed into law. The bill authorizes the
Secretary of Agriculture to exchange payment of a vet's educational
loans for service in critical shortage areas such as rural, public
health and inner city practices.
Although the act had nearly unanimous support when passed into law,
today Congress has only appropriated $500,000 for this pilot program in
last year's agriculture appropriations conference report, and I thank
the chairman for that. The amount is far too short of the act's
authorizing level, but veterinarian professionals like the American
Veterinary Medical Association believe it is vital to encouraging more
vets to enter into practices critical to our Nation's food security.
That is why I am offering an amendment to again fund this program at
$500,000, the same as enacted in last year's bill. The offset for this
funding would come from the Agriculture Buildings Facilities and Rental
Payments Account which is set to increase at over $24 million to nearly
$210 million next year.
We must provide much-needed resources in the area of work dedicated
to combating the threat of economic, human and animal loss. I again
acknowledge the difficult task the chairman faces and the commendable
job they have done in balancing those priorities, but I encourage all
Members to support my amendment, which is endorsed by the Veterinary
Medical Association, so we have a strong defense against all disease
outbreaks throughout the country.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, first let me say, I want to commend Mr. Kennedy for his
hard work on this issue. He is a great Member of the House and is
destined and on his way to doing greater things for the State of
Minnesota.
However, I reluctantly rise to oppose the amendment, and I think if
the gentleman will listen to my reasons, he will understand why.
Mr. Chairman, it is not that we are against the issue; it is that
there is no place to put the money that the gentleman is proposing. The
gentleman does accurately point out that the Senate provided funding
for this program in fiscal year 2006, and we agreed to fund this in the
conference. The Senate-passed bill had $1 million for this program, and
we agreed to $500,000.
However, adding more money to this program will have zero effect.
This is a brand new program. The USDA is only currently deciding how to
set this program up because they do not run a student loan repayment
program. The department has coordinated a working group, and they are
only now reviewing a draft management proposal. USDA wants to ensure
that this program is thought out. Rules and regulations will have to be
drafted and finalized, and the USDA estimates it is going to be about
18 months before this program is in place.
My point is fiscal year 2007 will have passed before this program is
in place. We have a hard enough time keeping ongoing programs
adequately funded. I know the gentleman appreciates that.
So, again, just to emphasize, even if I stood up here and agreed to
the gentleman's amendment, the money would go into limbo and would not
be used for what the gentleman wants it to be used for. I would urge
the gentleman to withdraw his amendment because we can work together to
make sure that this thing works properly.
This is the fiscal year 2007 appropriations bill for agriculture, and
there is absolutely nothing that they can do with this money for at
least 18 months. So it is not a prudent way to proceed.
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BONILLA. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Would the gentleman stipulate that the
previously appropriated funds are going to be sufficient to cover any
amounts going under this program during fiscal year 2007?
Mr. BONILLA. Yes, because until they can develop the rules,
regulations and how it is going to work, there is nothing they can
spend money the money on.
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. At the chairman's request, I will withdraw
my amendment under the agreement that in the future and once this
program has been further defined by the USDA, that we work together to
make sure that it becomes funded at the level necessary to ensure that
we have large animal veterinarians out in our rural areas.
Mr. BONILLA. Absolutely.
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Holt
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 18 offered by Mr. Holt:
Page 5, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $3,145,000)''.
Page 17, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $3,145,000)''.
Page 17, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $3,145,000)''.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to the bill that
will increase funding for organic transitions. It should come as no
surprise; in fact, we have talked about it already this morning, that
the demand for natural pesticide-free and chemical-free foods has been
increasing dramatically in the United States. In fact, the Department
of Agriculture says this part, this sector of the industry, is growing
at 20 percent per year.
And yet funding for a critical government program to help farmers
make the transition to organic farming has remained quite small and
flat year after year.
The Organic Transitions Program is a competitive grants program
established as part of the Cooperative Research and Extension Service.
The national program has been very important to organic farming, to
organic farmers and farms, and to fund research to assist the farmers
in overcoming the barriers and making the transition into organic
production.
This will help farmers, and it does today, help farmers optimize
management of organic matter, soil fertility, research in pests and in
crop health. Farmers have been funded to implement pest management
programs for use in blueberry production. Another study has been funded
to look at organic weed suppression.
Organic agriculture, indeed, is coming of age. But still, there is a
need for research under the Department of Agriculture to help in the
transition. Despite the surge in demand for organic products, the
research into the transition, the research to assist the farmers in
making the transition into organic farming methods has been holding
steady at just under $2 million for the last several fiscal years.
Well, spread over 50 States for agricultural research and extension
services, obviously that is not keeping up.
So today I am offering with my colleagues from Iowa, Oregon and
Wisconsin, Mr. Leach, Mr. DeFazio and Mr. Kind, an amendment to
increase the funding of the organic transitions program from $1.8
million to $5 million.
I am very much aware of the hard work that the chairman and the
committee have put into squeezing every dollar out of their bill to get
the best effect. However, I must say I was startled to find that the
funding for this important program was not increased a bit even though
this sector of agriculture in the United States is growing at 20
percent a year, and the demand for this very program is growing very
rapidly.
So this amendment has the enthusiastic support of the National
Organic Coalition, the Organic Trade Association, the northeast and
other chapters of the Organic Farming Association, and many in the
farming community.
And without this additional organic research funding, the farming
community simply will not be able to keep
[[Page H3060]]
pace with the ever-growing demand for pesticide-free and chemical-free
organic agricultural products.
I hope my colleagues will join me in favor of this amendment. I ask
for its approval.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The amendment
proposes to increase the organic transitions program by over $3
million. This represents, and I ask for all of my colleagues to get
this, a 175 percent increase over the current funding level. This
amendment is not even reasonable.
We struggle every day when we put a bill like this together to
squeeze every last penny that we can to be fiscally responsible and to
take care of requests that Members have. So to come to the floor with
an amendment that has a 175 percent increase is unreasonable. It is not
good government. I would urge Members to vote ``no.'' If this amendment
even passes with this funding level, it would be unsustainable in
conference. I do not understand, what is the point?
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the chairman of the
subcommittee, and I know he has a very tough task given the allocation
that he has to work with under the budget, but this amendment is not
only necessary, it is fair and reasonable.
The offset would be from the facilities account which is increased
even more than 175 percent from our calculation.
But the reason it is fair is because the organic industry today
commands well over 2 percent of market share in this country. As my
friend from New Jersey indicated, they have been growing on average 20
percent every year. The demand is growing even faster than that. Yet
under agriculture appropriations funding, they are receiving
approximately 0.2 percent of the funding under the agriculture bill
even though they command well over 2 percent of market share.
What we are saying is that the organic industry is here and it is
time to start treating them more fairly. They are growing and
commanding a bigger share. Consumer demand exists, and that is why I am
proud to offer this amendment with the gentleman from New Jersey, along
with our colleagues, Mr. Leach and Mr. DeFazio.
I personally have witnessed this growth in my congressional district
in western Wisconsin, which has more organic producers than anywhere
else in the entire country. In fact, it is the home of Organic Valley
which has seen their sales increase, on average, roughly 50 percent
every year. Last year alone, Organic Valley had an increase by 173 in
the membership of their coop, bringing their total number up to 730.
Today, based on a recent communication I had with them, they have over
600 applicants wanting to join Organic Valley and the cooperative, so
they can sell their organic products.
But as we know, the transition to organic is very difficult, very
expensive and it is very lengthy. The transition is a 3-year period
where they see a tremendous drop in income during that time period
until they are certified organic. That is why I think this amendment
addresses a very specific need that exists, and it is helping with the
transition costs into organic by the competitive grants that this
amendment would offer. The increase in funding is something that I
think is long overdue.
I think we in this body need to recognize the growing strength and
the impact that organic is having in the market today. But this is not
a question that organic is scientifically more healthy. We are not
alleging that.
What organic represents is a choice: A choice that producers get to
make on how they want to work their own lands, and a choice that
consumers can make when it comes time to buying products for themselves
and their families, and more and more consumers are choosing organic.
In fact, more and more large retailers throughout the country are
choosing to offer organic products on their shelves, and this will only
continue to grow. Therefore, the demand will continue to grow, and the
necessity for this amendment will certainly grow.
That is why I am hoping as we move forward with the reauthorization
of the next farm bill in the next session of Congress, we will be able
to engage the chairman of the subcommittee and other Members of this
Congress in recognizing the growing need and vitality that exists in
the organic industry today, and that we will be able to do some
innovative and creative things to assist organic producers, but
especially those smaller producers that are making that difficult and
expensive transition into organic today so that there is a place in the
farm bill for short-term assistance to enable them to make it.
But we can take an important step today by supporting this amendment,
again with the appropriate offset that we have identified, which is a
lot less than the increase in funding under this transition program.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KIND. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. HOLT. The gentleman from Wisconsin, I am sure, is fully aware of
the fact that the Department of Agriculture's Cooperative State
Research and Extension Service has been one of the things that has made
agriculture in America great and has made it successful.
What we are talking about is a highly competitive grant program under
that service. This is not any give-away. This is something that
advances the understanding and advances the agricultural science. The
chairman makes it sounds like we are talking about a whooping amount of
money, $5 million. We are talking about agricultural services all over
the country; every State is involved in organic agriculture now. This
is an important increase, but this is not a whooping, prohibitive
increase.
{time} 1330
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the organic industry has
never come before the Congress asking for a heck of a lot. That has
been the history of them. God bless them for doing so. This is one
small program in the overall agriculture appropriations bill that they
have come to us asking for greater assistance, because their need has
grown exponentially.
We believe that with the appropriate offset we have identified,
moving from roughly $1.8 million in these competitive grants up to $5
million will help relieve a little pent up pressure in that need that
exists today. Because the organic industry has the potential of growing
much faster and much larger than it is, even in recent years. I
encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey as well as the
gentleman from Wisconsin for their statements in support of the organic
transitions program.
As someone who has traveled the country, I can tell you that organic
food growers are an emerging sector in agriculture. Mr. Kind pointed
out that they now are at 2 percent.
I can tell you that all around this country there are many people
getting into organic agriculture. What that means is that there needs
to be structures in place to facilitate the growth of organic
agriculture, which is just what this amendment will do.
I think we can look at it as emerging small business persons as well.
These are individuals who believe in sustainability. These are
individuals who believe in the American dream of being able to farm a
plot of land and do it in a way that is consistent with a high quality,
something that we ought to all be proud of. It is something that
affects many Congressional districts in certainly every State.
I wanted to add my voice to support the efforts of Mr. Holt, Mr. Kind
and others who understand that the organic transition program is
something that is going to help the organic industry grow. It is good
for the industry, and it is good for American agriculture, and it is
good for our ability to keep growing our economy as we grow with the
growth of the organic industry.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I won't take all of my time, I just want to lend my
support to this amendment as a State in which we are seeing increasing
efforts in terms of organic farming, and having visited those efforts,
myself and understanding
[[Page H3061]]
the concerns that they have in making these kinds of transitions with
the kinds of movement of the American public that is moving in this
direction.
I just wanted to associate myself with the words of my colleagues and
support the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. 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.), $12,020,000, 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, $24,114,000, 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, $3,940,000: 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, $9,695,000: 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, $82,493,000, including such sums as may
be necessary for contracting and other arrangements with
public agencies and private persons pursuant to section
6(a)(9) of the Inspector General Act of 1978, and including
not to exceed $125,000 for certain confidential operational
expenses, including the payment of informants, to be expended
under the direction of the Inspector General pursuant to
Public Law 95-452 and section 1337 of Public Law 97-98.
Office of the General Counsel
For necessary expenses of the Office of the General
Counsel, $40,455,000.
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,
$651,000.
Economic Research Service
For necessary expenses of the Economic Research Service in
conducting economic research and analysis, $80,963,000.
National Agricultural Statistics Service
For necessary expenses of the National Agricultural
Statistics Service in conducting statistical reporting and
service work, $148,719,000, of which up to $36,582,000 shall
be available until expended for the Census of Agriculture.
Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota:
Page 9, line 10, insert after the first dollar amount the
following: ``(reduced by $500,000)''.
Page 19, line 8, insert after the first dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $500,000)''.
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, as a representative from
Minnesota's largest dairy-producing region, I have been a strong
advocate for working with the Federal Government to protect my State's
dairy producers and ranchers.
With 30,000 cattle producers representing a $2 billion industry in
the State of Minnesota, I take very seriously any potential threat to
the viability of the livestock sector in my State. The continued spread
of bovine tuberculosis in cattle throughout Minnesota and other States
poses a major risk of devastation to herds across the country.
So far this year, five beef cattle herds have tested positive for
bovine tuberculosis in Minnesota. During the same period, seven beef
and dairy herds in Michigan, and one dairy heard in Arizona have
contracted the disease.
While some may believe that these outbreaks are the exception rather
than the rule, it should be noted that several other States, including
California, New Mexico and Texas have seen outbreaks in their herds. In
fact, back in 2000, the USDA Secretary Glickman authorized over $44
million in emergency funds to expand TB eradication in Texas, Michigan
and elsewhere.
States are responsible for the lion's share of the cost of dealing
with these outbreaks. Not only must they combat the spread of bovine TB
in livestock, but they must also make do with the shortage of limited
Federal funds for indemnity payments to the ranchers and dairy
producers.
The scope of the problem is evident at USDA's Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, APHIS, where the limited funding for the bovine TB
eradication program has been strained so severely that no indemnity
money is left for the rest of this fiscal year. In fact, as a result of
the most recent herds testing positive for bovine TB, USDA has had to
find an additional $1.5 million above what has been appropriated for
the bovine TB program for this year.
This has resulted in delays, threatens animal health and increases
costs for our farmers and ranchers who are now reluctant. They are
reluctant to test their herds unless they are confident that indemnity
money is available.
Simply put, this is not acceptable. That is why I am offering an
amendment today that calls for a $500,000 increase in APHIS TB's
eradication program. Such an increase was specifically referenced in
the meeting that I had with APHIS Administrator DeHaven just last week.
My amendment, which is endorsed by the National Cattlemen's Beef
Association, would mean that the total of $17.2 million would be
appropriated for this year to deal with tuberculosis outbreaks in
fiscal 2007. The offset for this funding would come from the National
Agricultural Statistics Service, which has provided an increase of $9
million this year to a total of $145 million.
I, again, commend the chairman for the difficult balancing act that
he has and a difficult tight year, but I encourage all Members to
support my amendment so that all ranchers and dairy farmers, dairy
producers, receive the resources they need to combat this resilient and
destructive disease.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, it is with great reluctance I rise to oppose the
gentleman's amendment, because the gentleman is such a distinguished
Member. But we have funded the bovine TB program at $16.7 million, the
same as the President's request. That is $1.8 million over the current
level. So it is not like we haven't tried to address this issue.
We have challenges in fighting TB, but we feel like the resources
provided can meet those challenges for now. If indemnity funds are
exhausted in the current year, the Secretary can then access emergency
funds.
So we do feel that this issue that the gentleman is concerned about,
the concerns could be addressed. We certainly
[[Page H3062]]
would be willing to work with the Department and the gentleman if there
is a greater need that we currently don't foresee.
The gentleman also proposes to cut funds for the National Agriculture
Statistics Service. Those funds are for the purposes of agriculture and
agriculture estimates. The census of agriculture does have an increase
this year because it is a 5-year cycle and has up and down years. We
are headed up to a census.
If you cut agricultural estimates, you decrease the USDA's ability to
provide quality agriculture data. That data affects cash receipts to
America's farms and ranches and exceeds $200 billion annually. The
estimates must be precise; for example, a 1 cent change in the average
corn price can result in the change of more than $110 million in
counter-cyclical payments.
That is why I oppose the amendment. I know the gentleman can see my
points very clearly and also the earlier point I made that it is not
like we are not trying to address the gentleman's concerns and feel
like, again, that we have increased this line item. There is additional
money available, if there is a problem that emerges, so we are on your
side, would be my quote to the gentleman.
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BONILLA. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, the concern that we have,
having met with the administrator, the funds have run out for this year
some time ago. They have other diseases where they have sort of known
expiration funds that they can give assurance.
But there is no assurance that funds would be released by OMB from
CCC to provide this. Our farmers are telling us, as you know, farmers
can take time to be concerned, that they just don't even want to test
their animals because they know there isn't assured indemnity funds out
there. So given the current status we are at today, where we are out of
indemnity funds, farmers are concerned that their concern and their
lack of confidence in the program being there could result in them
making decisions that would delay identification of TB.
I recognize the issues that the chairman has brought up, but I do
believe that given the heightened importance of this, that I think we
need to proceed. I would also point out, as I mentioned, that when
Texas was vitally concerned, we had $44 million back in 2000. Yes I do
commend the increase, but I do believe this further increase remains
being called for.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would further
emphasize CCC funds could be used if they are needed to address this.
So we feel like, again, we are doing all we can to address this issue
at this time. That is why I am opposing the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota
will be postponed.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
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,
$1,057,603,000, of which $2,350,000 shall remain available
until expended: 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
the foregoing limitations shall not apply to the purchase of
land at Florence, South Carolina: 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 the Secretary, through the
Agricultural Research Service, or successor, is authorized to
lease approximately 40 acres of land at the Central Plains
Experiment Station, Nunn, Colorado, to the Board of Governors
of the Colorado State University System, for its Shortgrass
Steppe Biological Field Station, on such terms and conditions
as the Secretary deems in the public interest: Provided
further, That the Secretary understands that it is the intent
of the University to construct research and educational
buildings on the subject acreage and to conduct agricultural
research and educational activities in these buildings:
Provided further, That as consideration for a lease, the
Secretary may accept the benefits of mutual cooperative
research to be conducted by the Colorado State University and
the Government at the Shortgrass Steppe Biological Field
Station: Provided further, That the term of any lease shall
be for no more than 20 years, but a lease may be renewed at
the option of the Secretary on such terms and conditions as
the Secretary deems in the public interest: Provided further,
That the Agricultural Research Service may convey all rights
and title of the United States, to a parcel of land
comprising 19 acres, more or less, located in Section 2,
Township 18 North, Range 14 East in Oktibbeha County,
Mississippi, originally conveyed by the Board of Trustees of
the Institution of Higher Learning of the State of
Mississippi, and described in instruments recorded in Deed
Book 306 at pages 553-554, Deed Book 319 at page 219, and
Deed Book 33 at page 115, of the public land records of
Oktibbeha County, Mississippi, including facilities, and
fixed equipment, to the Mississippi State University,
Starkville, Mississippi, in their ``as is'' condition, when
vacated by the Agricultural Research Service: Provided
further, That 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, $140,000,000, 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, $651,606,000, as follows: to carry out
the provisions of the Hatch Act of 1887 (7 U.S.C. 361a-i),
$183,275,000; for grants for cooperative forestry research
(16 U.S.C. 582a through a-7), $22,668,000; for payments to
the 1890 land-grant colleges, including Tuskegee University
and West Virginia State University (7 U.S.C. 3222),
$38,331,000, 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)), $103,471,000; for
special grants for agricultural research on improved pest
control (7 U.S.C. 450i(c)), $14,952,000; for competitive
research grants (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)), $190,000,000; for the
support of animal health and disease programs (7 U.S.C.
3195), $5,006,000; for supplemental and alternative crops and
products (7 U.S.C. 3319d), $1,175,000; for grants for
research pursuant to the Critical Agricultural Materials Act
(7 U.S.C. 178 et seq.), $1,091,000, 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), $1,250,000, to remain available until
expended; for rangeland research grants (7 U.S.C. 3333),
$1,000,000; for higher education graduate fellowship grants
(7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(6)), $4,455,000, to remain available until
expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b); for higher education challenge
grants (7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(1)), $5,445,000; for a higher
education multicultural scholars program (7 U.S.C.
3152(b)(5)), $988,000 to remain available until
[[Page H3063]]
expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b); for an education grants program
for Hispanic-serving Institutions (7 U.S.C. 3241),
$5,940,000; for a secondary agriculture education program and
2-year post-secondary education (7 U.S.C. 3152(j)), $990,000;
for aquaculture grants (7 U.S.C. 3322), $3,956,000; for
sustainable agriculture research and education (7 U.S.C.
5811), $12,196,000; for a program of capacity building grants
(7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(4)) to colleges eligible to receive funds
under the Act of August 30, 1890 (7 U.S.C. 321-326 and 328),
including Tuskegee University and West Virginia State
University, $12,375,000, 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,
$3,000,000; for resident instruction grants for insular areas
under section 1491 of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3363),
$500,000; and for necessary expenses of Research and
Education Activities, $39,542,000, of which $2,723,000 for
the Research, Education, and Economics Information System and
$2,151,000 for the Electronic Grants Information System, are
to remain available until expended: Provided, That 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
further, That this paragraph shall not apply to research on
the medical, biotechnological, food, and industrial uses of
tobacco.
Amendment Offered by Ms. DeLauro
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. DeLauro:
Page 13, line 6, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $25,000,000)''.
Page 36, line 21, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $229,303,000)''.
Page 48, line 26, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $12,000,000)''.
Page 50, line 6, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $23,000,000)''.
Page 51, line 23, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
Page 52, line 7, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $6,697,000)''.
At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the
following new sections:
``Sec. __. In addition to amounts otherwise provided by
this Act, there is hereby appropriated to the Secretary the
following amounts for the following purposes:
``(1) For biorefinery grants authorized by section 9003 of
the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C.
8103), $50,000,000.
``(2) For grants under the energy audit and renewable
energy development program authorized by section 9005 of such
Act (7 U.S.C. 8105), $10,000,000.
``(3) For payments under the bioenergy program authorized
by section 9010 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 8108), and
notwithstanding subsection (c)(2) of such section,
$120,000,000.
``(4) For grants under the Biomass Research and Development
Initiative authorized by section 307 of the Biomass Research
and Development Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7624), $14,000,000.
``Sec. __. In the case of taxpayers with income in excess
of $1,000,000, for the calendar year beginning in 2007, the
amount of tax reduction resulting from enactment of Public
Law 107-16, Public Law 108-27, and Public Law 108-311 shall
be reduced by 1.21 percent.''.
Ms. DeLAURO. (During the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Connecticut?
There was no objection.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to address energy and
rural development needs. We have become all too aware in recent years
of the growing divide between rural Americans and other parts of our
nation. Rural America has 90 percent of the country's poorest counties,
a poverty rate of over 14 percent, and the number of farms in the
United States has declined by two-thirds over the past 7 decades. Crop
prices are low. Subsidies are eroding deepening digital divide. The
opportunities for opportunity in rural America are slim.
In offering the amendment, I believe we could begin to meet a variety
of rural development needs. From waste and water grants and community
facility grants to funding for broadband expansion and renewable energy
infrastructure, the amendment would raise the total water and waste
grant program in the bill to $689 million, an increase of 44 percent
over the bill, higher than any of the years since at least fiscal year
1996. These are the kinds of community facilities which help
communities, that provide direct loans to them to build libraries,
medical facilities, daycare centers. The funds help small rural
communities meet EPA Clean Water Act requirements, lower water costs
for homeowners and businesses, helping lower-income smaller communities
get funds they need.
USDA has left grant applications with $497 million from 536
communities unfunded at the end of fiscal year 2005 because it had used
up the funds appropriated for the program. This happens year after
year. We have got to start doing better. I believe this amendment helps
us to do that.
Let me focus on energy for a moment. The single most significant
action this committee could take to improve the prospects for rural and
national economies would be to make a strong commitment to renewable
energy. There are several programs in the 2002 farm bill, last year's
energy bill, funded through the agricultural appropriations bill that
offer us this opening to look at meaningful incentives for renewal
energy, production, consumption and infrastructure.
{time} 1345
We ought to seize this opportunity to re-energize a farm economy and
at the same time jump-start the country's energy independence by
looking at these new technologies.
Unfortunately, I believe our investment in these programs continues
to be tentative. Let's take a look at the programs. Bioenergy makes
available reduced-price feedstocks for expansion of ethanol and
biodiesel facilities. That receives no funding at all under this bill.
This program alone could help our farmers take those first steps
towards creating a market for renewable energy.
The Value-Added Agricultural Product Market Development Grants could
build more integrated ethanol biorefineries and spur development of new
uses for agricultural products that does not even receive its
authorized level in this bill with only $28 million.
Despite its popularity, the Renewable Energy Systems and Energy
Efficiencies Improvement Program that provides resources to farmers and
rural small businesses for energy efficiency is only funded at $23
million. That is half its authorized level.
Let me just be clear. These are all USDA programs funded under this
bill, so we have a serious role to play in this committee. The
amendment proposes to seriously fund these programs. It would increase
biorefinery development grants by $50 million, restore $120 million to
the bioenergy program, and fund the Value-Added Agricultural Product
Market Development Grant Program at an authorized level of $40 million.
In addition, it doubles the funding for the Renewable Energy Systems
and the Energy Efficiency Improvements Program and the Biomass Research
and Development Program, while providing increased funding to finance
renewable fuel filling stations in rural areas. It also increases
funding for the land grant universities by $25 million to look at their
portion of the research, which will be critical in order for us to move
forward.
The amendment is fully paid for by asking those making more than $1
million per year to forego less than $1,500 of their $90,000-plus tax
cuts. American families are sacrificing enough. It is time this
Congress ask the most well-off to do their part to meet the challenge
as well.
So, Mr. Chairman, with biofuels on the cusp of revolutionizing the
American economy in the very near future, the technologies are here,
they are here now. Brazil did this in only a few years' time. We can
make a statement here, a statement that the Congress is ready to face
this challenge head-on.
As I said before, Americans are ready to declare their energy
independence. We can make this possible with this bill. We can tap the
promise of our farms that they hold to reduce our dependence on oil. We
can provide a more secure economic future for our farmers. We can make
it happen with this amendment.
Renewable energy has the incredible potential to revive the American
farm economy and our own agricultural base. We ought to pass this
amendment.
[[Page H3064]]
Point of Order
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes
legislation on an appropriations bill, and therefore violates clause 2
of rule XXI.
The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general
appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
The amendment changes the application of existing law.
I request a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Miller of Florida). Does any Member wish to
be heard?
The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair finds this amendment changes
the application of existing law. The amendment therefore constitutes
legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Baca
Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Baca:
Page 13, line 6, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(reduced by $100,000)''.
Page 13, line 19, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(reduced by $800,000)''.
Page 14, line 12, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $700,000)''.
Page 18, line 16, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $100,000)''.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I first wish to commend Ranking Member Rosa
DeLauro and Chairman Bonilla for their good work on this appropriations
bill. It is a good bipartisan bill that has brought in a very important
issue, especially as it pertains to Hispanic Serving Institutions and
Colleges.
I now rise in favor of this collaboration amendment by my
Congressional Hispanic and Black Caucus to boost funding for minority
education in farming programs at the USDA. This amendment is being
offered by me, Representatives Butterfield, Hinojosa and Thompson to
increase funding for Hispanic Serving Institutions and for the 2501
Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers Program.
This amendment is important because it provides funding to help
minority educations in agriculture.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BACA. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is presenting a good
amendment, and I would just like to inform the gentleman we would be
happy to accept the gentleman's amendment if he would like to move it
to a vote.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I don't mind. I just
wanted to read it for the Record to be recorded that I am fighting on
behalf of everyone, if you don't mind, Mr. Chairman. But I appreciate
that. I think it is important, and I appreciate the fact that they are
moving on the amendment. Also I felt it was important for people to
hear the amendment itself in terms of what it does.
This amendment is important because it provides funding for minority
education in agriculture and helps rebuild a minority farming community
that has been often neglected and discriminated against.
Hispanic Serving Institutions are a great source of innovation and
deserve funding to continue generating advances in agricultural
sciences. We must stop the long-standing practice of underfunding these
institutions.
HSI funding lags behind funding for other minority institutions and
remains underfunded by nearly 75 percent. With population growth, and
this is why I appreciate the chairman's concern, and innovative ideas
in terms of helping Hispanic-growing populations, we see enrollment at
HSIs has skyrocketed, but funding remains very low and it is still
unacceptable.
HSIs have grown to a number nearly equal to Historically Black
Colleges and Universities. The funding has remained much lower.
A decade ago, we had less than 100 of the HSIs, and now we have
nearly 250. In my district alone, we have three Hispanic Serving
Institutions: Chaffey Community College, San Bernardino Community
College and San Bernardino Cal State University of California. Hispanic
community colleges want to know why they should not receive the full
$20 million per year in investment we promised them in the farm bill.
In addition, the 2501 program helps socially disadvantaged farmers
and ranchers, the fastest growing population in agriculture. We need to
help these small minority farmers who are investing and keeping our
country's farming legacy alive and well.
This program can help thousands of farm workers who are leaving
strawberry fields behind and growing their own crops. This is a great
example of the American Dream.
On the opposite side of the American Dream, this program helps keep
farming traditions of thousands of African American farmers forced to
the brink of discrimination, often by our own Federal Government.
Mr. Chairman, I understand you have agreed to accept this amendment,
and I appreciate that. Again, I want to thank you; I want to thank
Ranking Member DeLauro for the fine and great work on this legislation
and this bill. So I thank both of you.
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
(Mr. BUTTERFIELD asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I won't take the full 5 minutes. Let
me thank the chairman for agreeing to this amendment and thank him for
his leadership on the committee and thank him for his work on this
Congress.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is critically needed to provide
financial assistance to our Nation's minority farmers, 1890 Land Grant
Colleges and Universities, and our Nation's Hispanic serving
institutions.
We must offer more outreach and more technical assistance to our
farmers. During fiscal year 1983, President Reagan initiated the Small
Farmer Outreach Training and Technical Assistance program in response
to the USDA task force on A.A. farm ownership.
This is the only program--the only program--implemented by the USDA
that directly helps minority farmers who are losing their farms at a
rate that far exceeds their White counterparts.
Mr. Chairman, the USDA has already paid over $1 billion to settle
discrimination lawsuits. By investing in the 2501 program, we can
improve relationships between the USDA and socially disadvantaged
farmers and prevent future lawsuits. This is a small investment that
could potentially save millions in the future. I therefore, Mr.
Chairman, urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the Baca-
Butterfield-Hinojosa-Thompson amendment to increase funding for the
USDA education grants program for Hispanic-serving institutions and for
the Minority Rancher and Farmer Program. I would like to thank my
colleague from California, my good friend, Mr. Baca, for his leadership
role in building the capacity for our community to fully participate
and contribute to the USDA research agenda.
I am also pleased to join in partnership with Mr. Butterfield and Mr.
Thompson to offer this amendment to advance equality and equity in the
agriculture sector.
I would especially like to thank the chairman, my colleague from
Texas, Mr. Bonilla, for working with us to craft an amendment that
could draw bipartisan support.
The minority farmer and rancher outreach and technical assistance
program provides outreach and technical assistance to encourage and
assist socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers in owning and
operating farms and ranches as well as participating equitably in the
full range of agricultural programs offered by the USDA.
My region is home to a large number of hispanic farmers, and their
numbers are growing. our nation is stronger when our minority farmers
and ranchers are successful, and this program is a modest investment to
advance that success.
The competitive USDA/HSI grant program is designed to promote and
strengthen the ability of HSIs to carry out education programs that
attract, retain, and graduate outstanding students capable of enhancing
the nation's food and agricultural scientific and professional work
force.
This program is making a difference in my community and across the
nation.
Only 2.7 percent of Hispanic college graduates earn a degree in
agriculture-related areas. The continued under-representation of
Hispanics in these important demands a greater investment in such
programs to expand funding to additional HSIs to better meet USDA
goals.
[[Page H3065]]
Our amendment is a modest step in that direction.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on behalf of
some of our most vulnerable Americans who are being denied access to
needed and I underscore needed food stamps because of states
eliminating face-to-face interviews.
Mr. Chairman, I speak on behalf of children, the elderly, the
disabled and those with limited literacy. And I regret that they are
not here to speak for them selves. Because if they were here to speak
for themselves, they would tell you about the 20 minute phone waits,
they would tell you about the phone calls that have been abandoned
because they had to wait too long (44 percent per the USDA). They would
tell you about the inability to use the phone because they can't speak;
the inability to use the phone because they can't hear; they would tell
you about the lack of computer access and the lack of computer
literacy. This amendment assures a user friendly system for some of our
most vulnerable Americans. I speak for them, I stand for them, I cast
my vote for them.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Faleomavaega
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Faleomavaega:
Page 13, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert
``(decreased by $200,000)''.
Page 15, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $200,000)''.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I first would like to express my
appreciation to Chairman Bonilla and our senior ranking member, Ms.
DeLauro, for allowing me this opportunity to introduce this amendment
on behalf of my colleagues, the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr.
Fortuno), the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo), and the gentlewoman
from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, we have reviewed the amendment and would
be happy to accept it. If the gentleman would like to submit his
remarks for the Record, we can accept the amendment and move on.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I thank the distinguished chairman and the ranking
member for their support of my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the bill as reported by the committee provides five
hundred thousand dollars for the Resident Instruction Grants Program
for Institutions of Higher Education in the Insular Areas. Our
amendment would increase this amount by two hundred thousand dollars
for a total of seven hundred thousand dollars for this program.
The Resident Instruction Grants Program is a competitively-awarded
program administered by the Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service of the United States Department of Agriculture. The
Program is authorized by Section 7503 of the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002.
Resident Instruction Grants, as described by C-S-R-E-E-S, are
designed to promote and strengthen the ability of institutions in the
insular areas to carry out teaching and education programs within the
food and agricultural sciences and related disciplines. This Program
helps the land-grant institutions in the territories meet their unique
needs by strengthening their institutional educational capacities in
instruction and curriculum, and by enhancing the quality of teaching
and learning. Funding this program at a more sufficient level will
allow for a more efficient use of existing educational funds by the
institutions in the territories. Partnerships between faculties at
insular area and mainland institutions can be forged with continued and
increased funding for this program.
The amendment would reduce the amount appropriated for the National
Research Initiative competitive grants program by a corresponding
amount to ensure budget neutrality. The NRI is slated to receive
roughly a five percent increase over the Fiscal Year 2006 level under
this bill. The Congressional Budget Office has reviewed this amendment
and determined that it is budget neutral.
Adoption of this amendment would fund the Resident Instruction Grants
Program at an amount closer to what my colleagues from the territories
and I have requested in this cycle. The additional two hundred thousand
that this amendment would provide is still below the amount my
colleagues and I originally requested. This figure is also below the
amount recommended for this program by the National Association of
State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges.
Mr. Chairman, for the past three fiscal years my colleagues and I
have requested a level of funding for this program proportional to the
level provided under this bill for historically black colleges and
universities, Hispanic-serving institutions and tribal colleges. The
land grant institutions in our districts, in ways similar to the 1890
and 1994 institutions, are underserved and have unique needs that
deserve to be addressed.
We have written to the subcommittee chairman and to the ranking
member to request their support for the Resident Instruction Grants
Program. We have done so most recently as of last week regarding this
specific amendment, a version of which was preprinted in the May 16
Congressional Record by my colleague from Guam, Ms. Bordallo. We are
grateful Mr. Chairman that Chairman Bonilla has recognized the unique
needs of the land-grant institutions in the insular areas. He
understands their potential to contribute more substantially with USDA
support to national agricultural research missions.
This Program was first funded two years ago with the support of
Chairman Bonilla and our colleague from Ohio, Ms. Kaptur. This program
is important to strengthening the curriculum in the agricultural and
food sciences in the territories. The territorial colleges were
designated by Congress in 1972 as part of the land grant university
system, and are considered 1862 institutions. They include American
Samoa Community College, the University of Guam, the University of the
Virgin Islands, the University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez, Northern
Marianas College, and the College of Micronesia in Palau, Pohnpei, and
the Marshall Islands.
The institutions in the territories do not have the advantage of
housing long-established and historically well-funded agricultural and
food science programs as do many of the flagship programs within the
1862 institutions. Our institutions boast a much smaller faculty and
student enrollment compared with the most reputable 1862 institutions
on the U.S. mainland. Our institutions also do not have the capability
and capacity, from an institutional perspective, to effectively compete
for National Research Initiative dollars at the national level. The
inherent disadvantages experienced by our institutions are significant
concerns from a policy standpoint. We seek to address these concerns
with the amendment.
The amendment simply recognizes that the 1972 community--the land
grant in the territories--should have the ability to compete amongst
themselves for research and instruction grants. This amendment would
afford them that opportunity. I hope the gentleman from Texas, Chairman
Bonilla, and the gentle lady from Connecticut, Ms. DeLauro, can support
this amendment and, provided that it is adopted, will work to support
this increased level of funding in conference with the other body.
I thank the gentleman from Texas for committing the first funds for
this program two years ago and for his continued support of the land-
grant colleges in the territories. I also want to thank Mr. Chairman,
the Ranking Member for her support, as well as the assistance of Martin
Delgado and Martha Foley of the subcommittee staff. This program is
important to us and to our institutions in the territories. We hope we
can strengthen the Resident Instruction Grants Program in future years,
but we recognize that the modest increase proposed by this amendment is
a good start. I urge adoption of this amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
native american institutions endowment fund
For the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund
authorized by Public Law 103-382 (7 U.S.C. 301 note),
$11,880,000, to remain available until expended.
extension activities
For payments to States, the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, Micronesia, Northern
Marianas, and American Samoa, $457,042,000, 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, $281,429,000; 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,
$62,634,000; payments for the pest management program under
section 3(d) of the Act, $10,152,000; payments for the farm
safety program under section 3(d) of the Act, $4,517,000;
[[Page H3066]]
payments for New Technologies for Ag Extension under Section
3(d) of the Act, $1,985,000; payments to upgrade research,
extension, and teaching facilities at the 1890 land-grant
colleges, including Tuskegee University and West Virginia
State University, as authorized by section 1447 of Public Law
95-113 (7 U.S.C. 3222b), $16,777,000, to remain available
until expended; payments for youth-at-risk programs under
section 3(d) of the Smith-Lever Act, $8,396,000; for youth
farm safety education and certification extension grants, to
be awarded competitively under section 3(d) of the Act,
$494,000; payments for carrying out the provisions of the
Renewable Resources Extension Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 1671 et
seq.), $4,052,000; payments for federally-recognized Tribes
Extension Program under section 3(d) of the Smith-Lever Act,
$3,000,000; payments for sustainable agriculture programs
under section 3(d) of the Act, $4,067,000; payments for rural
health and safety education as authorized by section 502(i)
of Public Law 92-419 (7 U.S.C. 2662(i)), $1,945,000; payments
for cooperative extension work by the colleges receiving the
benefits of the second Morrill Act (7 U.S.C. 321-326 and 328)
and Tuskegee University and West Virginia State University,
$34,073,000, 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; for grants to youth
organizations pursuant to section 7630 of title 7, United
States Code, $2,000,000; and for necessary expenses of
Extension Activities, $18,248,000.
integrated activities
For the integrated research, education, and extension
grants programs, including necessary administrative expenses,
$55,234,000, 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),
$45,792,000, including $11,278,000 for the water quality
program, $12,997,000 for the food safety program, $3,890,000
for the regional pest management centers program, $4,219,000
for the Food Quality Protection Act risk mitigation program
for major food crop systems, $1,275,000 for the crops
affected by Food Quality Protection Act implementation,
$3,075,000 for the methyl bromide transition program, and
$1,855,000 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,
$990,000; for grants programs authorized under section
2(c)(1)(B) of Public Law 89-106, as amended, $1,000,000, to
remain available until September 30, 2008 for the critical
issues program; and $1,378,000, for the regional rural
development centers program; $2,277,000 for asian soybean
rust; and $11,000,000 for the Food and Agriculture Defense
Initiative authorized under section 1484 of the National
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Act of 1977,
to remain available until September 30, 2008.
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), $6,930,000, 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; $741,000.
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, $898,116,000, of which $4,127,000 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
$40,269,000 shall be used for the Cotton Pests program for
cost share purposes or for debt retirement for active
eradication zones; of which $33,107,000 shall be available
for a National Animal Identification program; of which
$47,205,000 shall be used to conduct a surveillance and
preparedness program for highly pathogenic avian influenza:
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 none of
the funds appropriated under this heading for the National
Animal Identification program may be obligated until the
Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
receives from the Secretary a complete and detailed plan for
the National Animal Identification System, including, but not
limited to, proposed legislative changes, cost estimates, and
means of program evaluation, and such plan is published as an
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal
Register for comment by interested parties: 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.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Kucinich
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Kucinich:
Page 19, line 8, insert after the first dollar amount the
following: ``(reduced by $89,000,000)(increased by
$89,000,000)''.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would maintain current
testing levels for mad cow disease. The underlying bill already
appropriates the same amount as that appropriated in fiscal year 2005.
This amendment merely calls for the same funding levels using the same
funding mechanism.
Until the United States Department of Agriculture stumbled upon
America's first case of mad cow disease, testing rates were abysmally
low. Out of 35 million cattle slaughtered annually, the USDA tested
20,000 in fiscal year 2003. Out of every 10,000 cattle that went to the
dinner table, only six were tested.
Then came the first case of mad cow in the U.S., that we know of. The
USDA ramped up the testing rate significantly, but only after
considerable public pressure. Six months after the positive test in
fiscal year 2005, the USDA tested at the rate of 100 cattle tested for
every 10,000 slaughtered. Another way of looking at it is 99 percent
were untested even after a major increase in testing rates. Though
still inadequate, it was a big improvement.
Contrast that with the other industrialized nations, many of whom did
not know the extent to which their countries harbored mad cow disease
until they got serious with their testing program. France and Germany
test over half their cattle. The U.K. tests all cattle over 24 months
old. Japan tests every single one.
So far, even with an untested rate of 99 percent, we managed to find
a total of three cases in the United States. When we looked, we found
cases. Even the USDA predicts undetected cases exist in the U.S.
Now their illogical response is to try to drastically cut back its
testing rates again. It is not enough of a gift to the large cattle
producers that 99 percent of the cattle do not go tested. Do we have to
do more for them at the expense of public health? So now 99.9 percent
will go untested?
Now, you could almost call this a we-aren't-looking-so-it-is-not-
there policy. And this policy is built on the assumption that we have a
firewall in place that prevents infected material from getting into the
food supply.
By banning high-risk material like cattle brains and spinal cord from
cattle feed, we are supposedly preventing any infected cow from
contaminating other cattle. This is an important part of our efforts,
because mad cow disease spreads when cattle eat infected parts of other
cattle. And yet scientists, advocates, the Inspector General and the
GAO have detailed the ways in which this practice is still allowed
because of gaping holes in the firewall.
Consider that the infectious material can be found in materials that
are allowed to be fed to cattle. Bone marrow, cow blood, peripheral
nerves, tongue and now some muscles are well-known or suspected to
contain the same infectious agent called a prion.
{time} 1400
And they are all still allowed in animal feed. There is very little
protection for cattle under 30 months. The
[[Page H3067]]
justification is, we do not expect to see the disease in younger
cattle. But at least two cases in Japan, 19 cases in the UK and 20
cases in the European Union have occurred in cattle under 30 months
old.
This level of protection failed to end the epidemic in the UK.
Enforcement of the firewall has been weak. The GAO found on three
separate occasions, including 2005, that even the meager laws designed
to keep cattle from eating cattle were being poorly enforced.
Finally, we must not forget that the USDA is in favor of this ``do
not look, do not find'' policy. When testing results for a cow in Texas
were inconclusive in November of 2004, the USDA declared the cow to be
free of Mad Cow Disease. But, again, after a public outcry and a public
admonition from the inspector general, the cow was tested 7 months
later and was found to be positive. And now the USDA wants to reduce
testing rates without adequate protections to ensure the disease cannot
be amplified through industrial agriculture practice. We need a
backstop.
Mr. Chairman, we need a way to know for sure whether our so called
firewall is working. Surveillance is the way to do that. But we are
taking an already weak program and undermining it; 99.9 percent of our
cattle will not be tested unless we signal to the USDA that Congress
demands otherwise.
Mr. Chairman, I am asking for support for my amendment to keep the
same level of testing we are using right now. This is the level that
proved what we all knew despite reassurances to the contrary, that
undetected Mad Cow Disease is here in the United States.
We must test to build the confidence of both domestic and foreign
consumers of American beef.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment. And I want to explain
to the gentleman from Ohio why, because I know he has got a serious
concern here. Let me assure the gentleman that there is not a Member in
this House of Representatives that is not concerned about BSE.
But sometimes some fringe groups in this country and big media start
talking about the sky is falling, and you have got to do this, that or
the other to check our beef supply, but for the most part, I am proud
of what this country has done to monitor BSE. I mean, nobody, most
people that serve in the House have children; they have families, and
no one wants to expose anyone to anything dangerous to eat.
USDA has had an enhanced surveillance program going since the spring
of 2004, they have tested 700,000 cattle. They have had two positive
tests. USDA is evaluating data from the enhanced surveillance program
to design a maintenance surveillance program. The data and design are
being peer reviewed by an outside group who will report findings within
a month.
Under any surveillance program, the U.S. will continue to test 100
percent of animals that have signs of a central nervous system
disorder. Any BSE program USDA adopts will meet or exceed international
standards.
Again, to compare our standards to another country that has a minimal
industry versus what we have in this country is absolutely not fair and
comparing apples to oranges. No country tests 100 percent of its
cattle.
The budget request covers 40,000 tests per year. However, if the peer
review panel or USDA determine that more than 40,000 are needed, the
Secretary has the ability to access additional funds. I can assure you
that if more tests need to be done to affirm the safety of the food
supply, they will be done.
Again, I can assure the gentleman that I have no less concern about
this issue than he does. And I understand, I have read the gentleman's
amendment. It is a very short amendment. It is going to take money out
of a line item, put it back into a line item in the appropriations
bill.
Mr. Chairman, I can assure the gentleman that the points have been
made. This is, again, not going to change one dollar in the bill. So
now that we have had this discussion, maybe the gentleman would
consider withdrawing the amendment unless he has an additional comment
that he would like to make.
I would yield for a response.
Mr. KUCINICH. If the gentleman would yield. I thank the gentleman. I
think that the gentleman's expression of concern that is shared by all
Members of Congress is correct. I appreciate you voicing it.
I want to point out that the feed ban, which is an underlying problem
here, and the USDA insists is strong, in reality is so weak that you
have companies like McDonalds, Cargill, Purina Mills, and even Pharma,
the pharmaceutical industry publicly calling for closing the loopholes.
So while I would agree with you, that if there were an outbreak, the
Secretary would advance more funds, I am also concerned that if we do
not keep the present funding levels, that we may not know if there is a
problem. So that is why I brought this amendment, Mr. Chairman.
I would reluctantly ask for the amendment to be voted on, only
because of that underlying concern that there is not enough, and we
should just keep things the way they are at the current levels and not
cut back on them. That is what my concern is.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's position,
because I know he brings a great deal of sincerity to the floor when he
has an amendment. In closing, I would just comment on how no matter
what business you have that sells beef to the public, whether it is a
fast food chain or a single restaurant, doesn't the gentleman
understand that that industry in itself, that the gentleman mentioned,
would do everything humanly possible to keep the beef supply safe?
So I know the gentleman is not making insinuations beyond what he is
saying today. But there are a lot of groups out there that somehow try
to scare the American people into thinking that this is not happening.
But I can assure the gentleman, again, that there is no less concern on
this side of the aisle about this issue than he has.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment because
I, too, am very, very concerned that the USDA is deciding or may decide
to lower the number of BSE tests that are performed annually. I spent
some time in this area.
Since the enhanced testing program began, the Inspector General of
the USDA has raised series concerns about the current enhanced
surveillance program. We have raised concerns with the USDA agencies in
hearings and in private conversations.
Let me just give you just a little bit of information. For example,
2004, the IG reported serious problems with the testing program,
including sampling was not random, and APHIS had not exercised the
authority it had to collect the samples. Geographic representation in
the testing was not assured. Cattle with central nervous system
symptoms were not always tested. Because of interagency confusion, a
process for getting samples of animals that die on the farm, those who
are at the highest risk, was not in place.
More recently, the IG found that senior APHIS officials blocked the
recommendations of scientists at the National Veterinary Services
Laboratory in Ames, Iowa, for additional BSE testing on a sample that
had tested positive initially several times.
Faced with the conflicting results, the scientists recommended
additional testing to resolve the discrepancy. APHIS headquarter
officials concluded no further testing was necessary, because testing
protocols were followed. In the end, it was the IG who decided the
additional testing should take place. It was done by AIS and the
British lab at Weybridge who both found that the sample tested
positively for BSE.
The IG also made shocking findings about the quality assurance and
the BSE testing program at the NVSL, the National Veterinary Service
Laboratory, such as the lack of adequate controls and procedures to
ensure the quality or capability of the BSE testing program, the
failure to implement an adequate quality assurance program for its own
laboratory testing procedures, or to obtain internationally recognized
accreditation for its BSE testing program.
Those are our concerns. That is what I was trying to lay out here,
and flaws in the program, the existing program. It does not make sense
to return to a lower level of BSE testing. I support the amendment.
[[Page H3068]]
I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
As the gentlewoman has pointed out, we have questions about the
current testing practices at the current funding levels. If we reduce
substantially the funding levels, with the thought that we have flaws
in the current test and practices, what could the consumers expect?
I mean, what the gentlewoman has suggested is that the USDA in this
regard has not been doing its job. Part of its job is to advocate for
defects for which the world has told us they do not want beef from the
United States if they cannot be assured of its safety.
Mr. Chairman, in same way you can say that the USDA is sabotaging
U.S. beef exports by its failure to have the kind of program that
people have a right to expect with the money that has already been
appropriated; if that money is cut, it essentially plays into the
USDA's lack of performance. So I want to thank the gentlewoman for
bringing that up. I, again, want to let the chairman know that I am
convinced on his commitment to this.
I believe that he wants to make sure that there is safety here. And I
just feel that it is important to bring this up and to call for a vote
on it.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
(Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to join Chairman Bonilla in
opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the most important thing that should come out of this
debate is that the American beef supply is very, very safe, the safest
in the world. And that is based not only on the statistics maintained
by the Department on food-borne illness, the lowest in the world, but
also based on the fact that there is no evidence of any American ever
contracting any disease from BSE based upon consuming American beef,
ever.
The enhanced surveillance program for BSE was designed as a one-time
intensive assessment to test as many animals as possible from the
portion of the cattle population considered to be most at risk for BSE.
A surveillance program is not designed to test every single animal at
risk for a disease, and surveillance is not a food safety measure.
Surveillance testing looks for signs of the disease in the cattle herd.
But it is USDA's other safeguards, such as the removal of specified
risk materials from cattle at slaughter, that protect consumers and the
food supply.
USDA has tested over 714,000 samples. And they have tested the
greatest at-risk cattle for having BSE. It has cost us more than $1
million a week to do it. The USDA's analysis of that surveillance data
shows that we are dealing with an incredibly low prevalence of the
disease in the United States, no more than four to seven cases in the
entire U.S. herd of 100 million cows.
What is more, because of the other practices, even if a cow has BSE,
like four to seven may have, they are not getting into our food supply.
The two cows that have been found so far in this country with BSE,
neither one got into our food supply. The USDA is currently putting its
analysis through a rigorous peer review process to ensure that the
conclusions drawn are sound and that they are scientifically credible.
We should allow that process to go forward. The enhanced surveillance
program gives the USDA the ability to stand on solid scientific ground
in saying that the prevalence of BSE in the United States is
extraordinarily low.
Mr. Chairman, given that fact, there is little justification for
continuing surveillance at the enhanced level once the USDA analysis is
affirmed by peer review. The USDA has said that the framework for
ongoing BSE testing will be based in science and will be in line with
international guidelines for a country like the United States that is
at minimal risk for the disease.
Mr. Chairman, we now have the data to draw scientific specific
conclusions, leaving no need to continue the enhanced program and no
justifications for the related costs. Surveillance testing is distinct
from food-safety testing, which we also conduct.
It is appropriate that the USDA will transition to ongoing testing
for BSE from a standpoint of sound science and policy.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, after conferring with the Chair and the
ranking member, I decided that it looks like they are really engaged in
this to keep on the USDA, so I am going to withdraw the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
In fiscal year 2007, 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, $5,946,000, 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, $77,269,000, 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 $62,211,000 (from fees collected) shall be
obligated during the current fiscal year for administrative
expenses: Provided, That if crop size is understated and/or
other uncontrollable events occur, the agency may exceed this
limitation by up to 10 percent with notification to the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
funds for strengthening markets, income, and supply (section 32)
(including transfers of funds)
Funds available under section 32 of the Act of August 24,
1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c), shall be used only for commodity
program expenses as authorized therein, and other related
operating expenses, including not less than $9,900,000 for
replacement of a system to support commodity purchases,
except for: (1) transfers to the Department of Commerce as
authorized by the Fish and Wildlife Act of August 8, 1956;
(2) transfers otherwise provided in this Act; and (3) not
more than $16,425,000 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)), $1,334,000.
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, $39,737,000: 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.
[[Page H3069]]
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, $656,000.
Food Safety and Inspection Service
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), $853,249,000, of which no
less than $766,290,000 shall be available for Federal food
safety and inspection; and in addition, $1,000,000 may be
credited to this account from fees collected for the cost of
laboratory accreditation as authorized by section 1327 of the
Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990 (7
U.S.C. 138f): Provided, That of the total amount made
available under this heading, no less than $20,653,000 shall
be obligated for regulatory and scientific training: Provided
further, That not to exceed $565,000 is for construction of a
laboratory sample receiving facility at the Russell Research
Center in Athens, Georgia: Provided further, That this
appropriation shall be available pursuant to law (7 U.S.C.
2250) for the alteration and repair of buildings and
improvements, but the cost of altering any one building
during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10 percent of the
current replacement value of the building.
FARM ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
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, $691,000.
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, $1,053,760,000: 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: Provided
further, That none of the funds made available by this Act
may be used to pay the salaries or expenses of any officer or
employee of the Department of Agriculture to close any local
or county office of the Farm Service Agency unless the
Secretary of Agriculture, not later than 30 days after the
date on which the Secretary proposed the closure, holds a
public meeting about the proposed closure in the county in
which the local or county office is located, and, after the
public meeting but not later than 120 days before the date on
which the Secretary approves the closure, notifies the
Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate, and the members of Congress
from the State in which the local or county office is located
of the proposed closure.
{time} 1415
Amendment Offered by Mr. Ryan of Ohio
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Ryan of Ohio:
Page 27, line 1, strike ``after'' and insert ``before''.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would simply strike the
word ``after'' and insert ``before'' in the section of the bill dealing
with the Farm Service Agency.
The amendment at hand would allow for the public hearing to take
place no later than 30 days before and not after the Secretary of
Agriculture allows for an office closure.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, we have reviewed the amendment and would
be happy to accept the amendment. If the gentleman would take ``yes''
for an answer and submit his remarks for the Record, we could move on.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I would be happy to, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BONILLA. I withdraw my reservation of the point of order.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I thank the chairman and I thank Ms. DeLauro.
Thank you Mr. Chairman, Chairman Bonilla and Ranking Member DeLauro
and the staff on the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee.
My amendment would simply strike the word ``after'' and insert
``before'' in the section of the bill dealing with the Farm Service
Agency. The amendment at hand would allow for the public hearing to
take place no later than 30 days before--and not after--the Secretary
of Agriculture allows for an office closure.
In this section of the current bill, language had been put in place
to safeguard local FSA offices from inappropriate closure and
relocation. In current form, the Secretary of the Department of
Agriculture would be able to propose an office closure--and then after
the closure is proposed, then hold a public hearing. This language was
in last years Agriculture Appropriations Bill--and we thought this
would help the process and allow for local public input before any
office closures were proposed.
The reason for this amendment is due to my profound concerns of what
is currently taking place in Ohio. Last month I was contacted by local
producers in my district concerned that their local FSA office would be
closed.
My office received a copy of the proposed ``county office
reorganization'' as provided by the Ohio State FSA Committee, and I was
surprised to see this proposal as there has been no involvement from my
local county FSA committees or local producers.
In a memo sent from Administrator Teresa Lasseter (USDA) to all State
FSA Executive Directors on January 13, 2006, she states, ``Further,
USDA agrees with the long-standing intent of Congress that office
closures and relocations should occur based on rigorous analysis to
ensure actions are cost-effective and will better serve the public.''
The bottom line is that we need to have complete information about
the needs of family farmers and ranchers before we or the Department
makes radical decisions about FSA Personnel levels.
This process should start at the county committees and involve an
office-by-office and regional analysis. Only then, can our State FSA
offices and the USDA make the best decisions on office closures and
relocations.
I understand the need for efficiency, but we must be concerned about
how this will impact our family farmers and agricultural communities.
In most of our counties, our farmers know that they can drive to one
place to access their FSA, NRCS, SWCD and Extension. This is the place
where they access the Internet, the fax machine and socialize with
others in their community.
Again, my amendment only says that the public hearing be 30 days
prior to closure, rather than after the closure has been proposed.
Please help in supporting the family farmers in your district and
support this fair and simple amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
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),
$4,208,000.
Grassroots Source Water Protection Program
For necessary expenses to carry out wellhead or groundwater
protection activities under section 1240O of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839bb-2), $3,713,000, to
remain available until expended.
dairy indemnity program
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses involved in making indemnity
payments to dairy farmers and manufacturers of dairy products
under a dairy indemnity program, $100,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That such program is
carried out by the Secretary in the same manner as the dairy
indemnity program described in the Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-387, 114
Stat. 1549A-12).
agricultural credit insurance fund program account
(including transfers of funds)
For gross obligations for the principal amount of direct
and guaranteed farm ownership (7 U.S.C. 1922 et seq.) and
operating (7 U.S.C. 1941 et seq.) loans, Indian tribe land
acquisition loans (25 U.S.C. 488), and boll weevil loans (7
U.S.C. 1989), to be available from funds in the Agricultural
Credit Insurance Fund, as follows: farm ownership loans,
$1,422,750,000, of which $1,200,000,000 shall be for
unsubsidized guaranteed loans and $222,750,000 shall be for
direct loans; operating loans, $2,065,754,000, of which
$1,150,000,000 shall be for unsubsidized guaranteed loans,
$272,254,000 shall be for subsidized guaranteed loans and
$643,500,000 shall be for direct loans; Indian tribe land
acquisition loans, $3,960,000; and for boll weevil
eradication program loans, $59,400,000: Provided, That the
Secretary shall deem the
[[Page H3070]]
pink bollworm to be a boll weevil for the purpose of boll
weevil eradication program loans.
For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, including the
cost of modifying loans as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as follows: farm ownership
loans, $16,293,000, of which $6,960,000 shall be for
guaranteed loans, and $9,333,000 shall be for direct loans;
operating loans, $131,046,000, of which $28,405,000 shall be
for unsubsidized guaranteed loans, $27,416,000 shall be for
subsidized guaranteed loans, and $75,225,000 shall be for
direct loans; Indian tribe land acquisition loans, $838,000;
and for boll weevil eradication program loans, $1,129,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $315,258,000, of
which $307,338,000 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: Provided further,
That none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries and
expenses of personnel to collect from the lender an annual
fee on unsubsidized guaranteed operating loans, a guarantee
fee of more than one percent of the principal obligation of
guaranteed unsubsidized operating or ownership loans, or a
guarantee fee on subsidized guaranteed operating loans
administered by the Farm Service Agency.
Risk Management Agency
For administrative and operating expenses, as authorized by
section 226A of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization
Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6933), $77,197,000: Provided, That not
to exceed $1,000 shall be available for official reception
and representation expenses, as authorized by 7 U.S.C.
1506(i).
CORPORATIONS
The following corporations and agencies are hereby
authorized to make expenditures, within the limits of funds
and borrowing authority available to each such corporation or
agency and in accord with law, and to make contracts and
commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as
provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control
Act as may be necessary in carrying out the programs set
forth in the budget for the current fiscal year for such
corporation or agency, except as hereinafter provided.
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund
For payments as authorized by section 516 of the Federal
Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1516), such sums as may be
necessary, to remain available until expended.
Commodity Credit Corporation Fund
reimbursement for net realized losses
For the current fiscal year, such sums as may be necessary
to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for net
realized losses sustained, but not previously reimbursed,
pursuant to section 2 of the Act of August 17, 1961 (15
U.S.C. 713a-11): Provided, That of the funds available to the
Commodity Credit Corporation under section 11 of the
Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C 714i) for
the conduct of its business with the Foreign Agricultural
Service, up to $5,000,000 may be transferred to and used by
the Foreign Agricultural Service for information resource
management activities of the Foreign Agricultural Service
that are not related to Commodity Credit Corporation
business.
hazardous waste management
(limitation on expenses)
For the current fiscal year, the Commodity Credit
Corporation shall not expend more than $5,000,000 for site
investigation and cleanup expenses, and operations and
maintenance expenses to comply with the requirement of
section 107(g) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9607(g)), and
section 6001 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(42 U.S.C. 6961).
TITLE II
CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment
For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment to
administer the laws enacted by the Congress for the Forest
Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service,
$810,000.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Lucas
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Lucas:
Page 32, line 12, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(reduced by $810,000)''.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the amendment is to remove
$810,000 in salaries and expenses from the Office of the Under
Secretary For the Natural Resources and the Environment.
Mr. Chairman, I have had the privilege since and during the 2002 farm
bill of chairing the subcommittee with jurisdiction over the
conservation programs. In the 2002 farm bill we did an outstanding job
of bringing new and substantial resources to conservation. Since then I
have had the privilege of working with Chairman Bonilla and the
subcommittee on appropriations in making sure those resources are
effectively put in the hands of producers out there to protect our
environment, our soil, our water, our wildlife. But after a number of
years, I have worked diligently to address problems in the technical
assistance programs, how these problems are paid for, the
implementation.
I must say after much frustration with working with the national
office of the NRCS today I have to take action. In that I offer this
amendment to set aside $810,000 so that when the Appropriations
Committee begins the process of putting the final conference committee
reports together this fall, that they will have the necessary
ammunition to correct this situation.
I know it is a bold statement, and I know it is a serious thing; but
making sure that the technical assistance dollars are available to
local and State NRCS offices so that the farm bill programs,
conservation programs can be implemented is of the greatest importance.
And only after tremendous frustration as a subcommittee chairman on the
authorizing committee do I take this bold and drastic step.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I would like to commend the gentleman from Oklahoma for his work on
this issue. When a gentleman who works as hard and as sincerely as Mr.
Lucas does on this issue, it is just unconscionable that he cannot get
the response that he needs.
This is a gentleman who does not ask for too much. He tries to be
fair about the request that he has from the Department. I support the
gentleman's amendment with enthusiasm. There is also, as an aside from
the issues that he has addressed, it has been brought to my attention
that there may be some inappropriate activity that has been conducted
out of this office. We are not going to name names here, but there is a
buddy who has the nickname by the name of ``chief'' or something like
that that has been lobbying on behalf of their causes which is an
unethical, illegal activity that has been conducted out of this office.
We need to get to the bottom of this as well as trying to address the
gentleman from Oklahoma's issue. The gentleman brings a good amendment
forward, and we are prepared to vote ``aye'' on it.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Natural Resources Conservation Service
conservation operations
For necessary expenses for carrying out the provisions of
the Act of April 27, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 590a-f), including
preparation of conservation plans and establishment of
measures to conserve soil and water (including farm
irrigation and land drainage and such special measures for
soil and water management as may be necessary to prevent
floods and the siltation of reservoirs and to control
agricultural related pollutants); operation of conservation
plant materials centers; classification and mapping of soil;
dissemination of information; acquisition of lands, water,
and interests therein for use in the plant materials program
by donation, exchange, or purchase at a nominal cost not to
exceed $100 pursuant to the Act of August 3, 1956 (7 U.S.C.
428a); purchase and erection or alteration or improvement of
permanent and temporary buildings; and operation and
maintenance of aircraft, $791,498,000, to remain available
until March 31, 2008, of which not less than $10,588,000 is
for snow survey and water forecasting, and not less than
$10,678,000 is for operation and establishment of the plant
materials centers, and of which not less than $27,225,000
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
[[Page H3071]]
(43 U.S.C. 1592(c)): Provided further, That qualified local
engineers may be temporarily employed at per diem rates to
perform the technical planning work of the Service.
watershed surveys and planning
For necessary expenses to conduct research, investigation,
and surveys of watersheds of rivers and other waterways, and
for small watershed investigations and planning, in
accordance with the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention
Act (16 U.S.C. 1001-1009), $6,022,000.
watershed and flood prevention operations
For necessary expenses to carry out preventive measures,
including but not limited to research, engineering
operations, methods of cultivation, the growing of
vegetation, rehabilitation of existing works and changes in
use of land, in accordance with the Watershed Protection and
Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1001-1005 and 1007-1009), the
provisions of the Act of April 27, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 590a-f),
and in accordance with the provisions of laws relating to the
activities of the Department, $40,000,000, to remain
available until expended; of which up to $10,000,000 may be
available for the watersheds authorized under the Flood
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 701 and 16 U.S.C. 1006a): Provided,
That not to exceed $20,000,000 of this appropriation shall be
available for technical assistance: Provided further, That
not to exceed $1,000,000 of this appropriation is available
to carry out the purposes of the Endangered Species Act of
1973 (Public Law 93-205), including cooperative efforts as
contemplated by that Act to relocate endangered or threatened
species to other suitable habitats as may be necessary to
expedite project construction.
watershed rehabilitation program
For necessary expenses to carry out rehabilitation of
structural measures, in accordance with section 14 of the
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C.
1012), and in accordance with the provisions of laws relating
to the activities of the Department, $31,245,000, to remain
available until expended.
resource conservation and development
For necessary expenses in planning and carrying out
projects for resource conservation and development and for
sound land use pursuant to the provisions of sections 31 and
32 of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (7 U.S.C. 1010-1011;
76 Stat. 607); the Act of April 27, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 590a-f);
and subtitle H of title XV of the Agriculture and Food Act of
1981 (16 U.S.C. 3451-3461), $50,787,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That the Secretary shall enter into
a cooperative or contribution agreement, within 45 days of
enactment of this Act, with a national association regarding
a Resource Conservation and Development program and such
agreement shall contain the same matching, contribution
requirements, and funding level, set forth in a similar
cooperative or contribution agreement with a national
association in fiscal year 2002: Provided further, That not
to exceed $3,411,000 shall be available for national
headquarters activities.
TITLE III
RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development
For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Under Secretary for Rural Development to administer programs
under the laws enacted by the Congress for the Rural Housing
Service, the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, and the
Rural Utilities Service, $692,000.
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, $699,893,000, to remain
available until expended, of which $49,477,000 shall be for
rural community programs described in section 381E(d)(1) of
such Act; of which $561,252,000 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 $89,164,000 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 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; $3,000,000 shall be
for grants to the Delta Regional Authority (7 U.S.C. 1921 et
seq.) for any purpose under this heading: Provided further,
That of the amount appropriated for rural utilities programs,
not to exceed $25,000,000 shall be for water and waste
disposal systems to benefit the Colonias along the United
States/Mexico border, including grants pursuant to section
306C of such Act; $16,215,000 shall be for technical
assistance grants for rural water and waste systems pursuant
to section 306(a)(14) of such Act, of which $5,600,000 shall
be for Rural Community Assistance Programs; and not to exceed
$14,000,000 shall be for contracting with qualified national
organizations for a circuit rider program to provide
technical assistance for rural water systems: Provided
further, That of the total amount appropriated, not to exceed
$22,800,000 shall be available through June 30, 2007, for
authorized empowerment zones and enterprise communities and
communities designated by the Secretary of Agriculture as
Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones; of which $1,100,000
shall be for the rural community programs described in
section 381E(d)(1) of such Act, of which $13,400,000 shall be
for the rural utilities programs described in section
381E(d)(2) of such Act, and of which $8,300,000 shall be for
the rural business and cooperative development programs
described in section 381E(d)(3) of such Act: Provided
further, That any prior year balances for high cost energy
grants authorized by section 19 of the Rural Electrification
Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901(19)) shall be transferred to and
merged with the ``Rural Utilities Service, High Energy Costs
Grants Account''.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanders
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Sanders:
Page 36, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $1,500,000) (reduced by
$1,500,000)''.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to
provide $1.5 million in Federal funding for a revival of the National
Agri-Tourism Initiative under the USDA Rural Community Advancement
Program.
Mr. Chairman, I do not have to explain to anybody in this room that
family farmers all over this country are in desperate condition.
Commodity prices are extremely low, and we are seeing the loss of
thousands and thousands of family farmers and the way of life that many
rural communities in Vermont and throughout this country have known.
What this amendment does is pretty simple. What it says is that in
many States like mine, people come to rural areas because they enjoy
the beauty, the incredible beauty that farmers help create.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BONILLA. I would say to the gentleman that we would be happy to
accept the gentleman's amendment, and if he could submit his remarks
for the Record and he can take ``yes'' for an answer, we can move on.
Mr. SANDERS. I thank the chairman very much. I will be very brief.
Just to say that I think we can all agree that we want to help family
farmers increase their cash flow, and one of the ways we can do that is
enable them to come up with ideas that will bring tourists to their
farms, and that is what this amendment is about. It has worked well in
Vermont up to now. I think it can work well all over the country. I
thank the chairman very much for his support and Ms. DeLauro as well.
Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to provide $1.5
million in Federal funding for a revival of the national agri-tourism
initiative under the USDA Rural Community Advancement Program. This
program received $1 million in the fiscal year 2000 Agriculture
appropriations bill. The House provided $2 million in the fiscal year
2001 Agriculture appropriations bill, but unfortunately this funding
was stripped in conference, and this program hasn't received funding
since. Mr. Chairman, it is time to bring this program back to life.
Family farmers today need all of the help that they can get if they are
going to stay in business, and agri-tourism is one way to help them.
Mr. Chairman, it is imperative that in Vermont and throughout rural
America we preserve family owned farms and maintain strong rural
economies. As family farmers struggle to survive, it is important that
we develop new sources of revenue for them. Reviving the national agri-
tourism program will help family farmers increase their incomes. From
creating advertising campaigns and working more closely with the
tourism industry, to developing farmers' markets, food festivals, bed
and breakfasts and farm tours, such programs have great potential for
increasing the incomes of family farmers.
[[Page H3072]]
Mr. Chairman, family farmers throughout this country deserve more
revenue from tourism than they are currently receiving. Many tourists
come to rural America because of the beautiful agricultural landscape.
Unfortunately, however, family farmers receive relatively little direct
revenue from that tourism. This program will help put more tourists'
dollars into the hands of our farmers and that is very important.
Specifically, Mr. Chairman, this amendment would help farmers with
the knowledge, networks, markets and loans critical to starting-up
farm-based businesses that take advantage of the tourism dollars coming
into their States.
Let me give you some examples of what agri-tourism is all about and
why we need additional help for family farmers to get involved in this
growing enterprise. Family farmers throughout this country are
converting their guest rooms to small bed and breakfast operations, and
are making a few bucks in doing that. To be successful, they might need
a loan to convert a room into a bed and breakfast, and they might need
some help in learning how to market their enterprise.
Farmers are now encouraging tour buses to stop by and to learn what
family agriculture is about. In order to be successful, they might need
a loan or a small grant to build a restroom or a parking facility.
Farmers might want to build snowmobile trails through their fields in
the wintertime. It costs a little bit of money to do that and advertise
what you have.
A farm family that grows apples might want to add value to their
product and bake apple pies, and they might need some help in buying a
large enough oven to do that and to get started in a small business
venture.
The list goes on and on. But family farmers all over this country,
who desperately want to stay on the land, increasingly are trying to
take advantage of the tourism that comes into their region.
Family farmers all across America desperately need the kind of
funding that this agri-tourism initiative would provide. The agri-
tourism initiative can mean the difference between another family farm
going out of business or finding a way to thrive.
To put it simply, agri-tourism funding is about saving family farms.
Without this kind of funding America will lose its family farms,
agriculture will cease to be competitive and consumers will pay the
price of shortsighted government policies.
Mr. Chairman, family farmers deserve the support of this Congress. I
urge my colleagues to stand up for America's family farmers and support
this amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
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; $182,860,000:
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: $4,801,736,000 for loans to
section 502 borrowers, as determined by the Secretary, of
which $1,237,498,000 shall be for direct loans, and of which
$3,564,238,000 shall be for unsubsidized guaranteed loans;
$36,382,000 for section 504 housing repair loans;
$100,000,000 for section 515 rental housing; $100,000,000 for
section 538 guaranteed multi-family housing loans; $5,045,000
for section 524 site loans; $11,482,000 for credit sales of
acquired property, of which up to $1,482,000 may be for
multi-family credit sales; and $4,980,000 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, $131,893,000, of which $124,121,000 shall be for
direct loans, and of which $7,772,000, to remain available
until expended, shall be for unsubsidized guaranteed loans;
section 504 housing repair loans, $10,751,000; repair,
rehabilitation, and new construction of section 515 rental
housing, $45,670,000; section 538 multi-family housing
guaranteed loans, $7,740,000; credit sales of acquired
property, $720,000; and section 523 self-help housing land
development loans, $123,000: Provided, That of the total
amount appropriated in this paragraph, $1,500,000 shall be
available through June 30, 2007, for authorized empowerment
zones and enterprise communities and communities designated
by the Secretary of Agriculture as Rural Economic Area
Partnership Zones: Provided further, That any obligated
balances for a demonstration program for the preservation and
revitalization of the section 515 multi-family rental housing
properties as authorized in Public Law 109-97 shall be
transferred to and merged with the ``Rural Housing Service,
Multifamily Housing Revitalization Program Account''.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $430,080,000,
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, $335,400,000, to
remain available through September 30, 2008; 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, up to $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 $50,000
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 one-year period: Provided further, That any
unexpended balances remaining at the end of such one-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: Provided
further, That rental assistance that is recovered from
projects that are subject to prepayment shall be deobligated
and reallocated for vouchers and debt forgiveness or payments
consistent with the requirements of this Act for purposes
authorized under section 542 and section 502(c)(5)(D) of the
Housing Act of 1949, as amended: Provided further, That up to
$4,190,000 may be used for the purpose of reimbursing funds
used for rental assistance agreements entered into or renewed
pursuant to the authority under section 521(a)(2) of the Act
for emergency needs related to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Multifamily Housing Revitalization Program Account
For the rural housing voucher program as authorized under
section 542 of the Housing Act of 1949, (without regard to
section 542(b)), for the cost to conduct a housing
demonstration program to provide revolving loans for the
preservation of low-income multi-family housing projects, and
for additional costs to conduct a demonstration program for
the preservation and revitalization of the section 515 multi-
family rental housing properties, $28,000,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That of the funds made
available under this heading, $16,000,000 shall be available
for rural housing vouchers to any low-income household
(including those not receiving rental assistance) residing in
a property financed with a section 515 loan which has been
prepaid after September 30, 2005: Provided further, That the
amount of such voucher shall be the difference between
comparable market rent for the section 515 unit and the
tenant paid rent for such unit: Provided further, That funds
made available for such vouchers, shall be subject to the
availability of annual appropriations: Provided further, That
the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable,
administer such vouchers with current regulations and
administrative guidance applicable to section 8 housing
vouchers administered by the Secretary of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (including the ability to pay
administrative costs related to delivery of the voucher
funds): Provided further, That of the funds made available
under this heading, $3,000,000 shall be available for loans
to private non-profit organizations, or such non-profit
organizations' affiliate loan funds and State and local
housing finance agencies, to carry out a housing
demonstration program to provide revolving loans for the
preservation of low-income multi-family housing projects:
Provided further, That loans under such demonstration program
shall have an interest rate of not more than 1 percent direct
loan to the recipient: Provided further, That the Secretary
may defer the interest and principal payment to the Rural
Housing Service for up to 3 years and the term of such loans
shall not exceed 30 years: Provided further,
[[Page H3073]]
That of the funds made available under this heading,
$9,000,000 shall be available for a demonstration program for
the preservation and revitalization of the section 515 multi-
family rental housing properties to restructure existing
section 515 loans, as the Secretary deems appropriate,
expressly for the purposes of ensuring the project has
sufficient resources to preserve the project for the purpose
of providing safe and affordable housing for low-income
residents including reducing or eliminating interest;
deferring loan payments, subordinating, reducing or
reamortizing loan debt; and other financial assistance
including advances and incentives required by the Secretary:
Provide further, That if Congess enacts legislation to
permanently authorize a section 515 multi-family rental
housing loan restructuring program similar to the
demonstration program described herein, the Secretary may use
funds made available for the demonstration program under this
heading to carry out such legislation with the prior approval
of the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of
Congress.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the direct loan program, $990,000, which shall be
transferred to and merged with the appropriation for ``Rural
Development, Salaries and Expenses'', which shall be made
available for the Secretary to contract with third parties to
acquire the necessary automation and technical services
needed to restructure section 515 mortgages.
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), $37,620,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That of the total
amount appropriated, $1,000,000 shall be available through
June 30, 2007, 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, $40,590,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That of the total amount
appropriated, $1,188,000 shall be available through June 30,
2007, for authorized empowerment zones and enterprise
communities and communities designated by the Secretary of
Agriculture as Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones:
Provided further, That any balances to carry out a housing
demonstration program to provide revolving loans for the
preservation of low-income multi-family housing projects as
authorized in Public Law 108-447 and Public Law 109-97 shall
be transferred to and merged with ``Rural Housing Service,
Multifamily Housing Revitalization Program Account''.
Farm Labor Program Account
For the cost of direct loans, grants, and contracts, as
authorized by 42 U.S.C. 1484 and 1486, $47,525,000, 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)),
$33,925,000.
For the cost of direct loans, $14,951,000, 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, 2007, for
Federally Recognized Native American Tribes and of which
$3,449,000 shall be available through June 30, 2007, for
Mississippi Delta Region counties (as determined in
accordance with Public Law 100-460): 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, $880,000 shall be available through June 30,
2007, 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, $4,780,000 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, $34,652,000.
For the cost of direct loans, including the cost of
modifying loans as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, $7,568,000, to remain
available until expended.
Of the funds derived from interest on the cushion of credit
payments, as authorized by section 313 of the Rural
Electrification Act of 1936, $78,514,000 shall not be
obligated and $78,514,000 are rescinded.
Rural Cooperative Development Grants
For rural cooperative development grants authorized under
section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932), $9,913,000, of which
$500,000 shall be for a cooperative research agreement with a
qualified academic institution to conduct research on the
national economic impact of all types of cooperatives; and of
which $3,000,000 shall be for cooperative agreements for the
appropriate technology transfer for rural areas program:
Provided, That not to exceed $1,485,000 shall be for
cooperatives or associations of cooperatives whose primary
focus is to provide assistance to small, minority producers
and whose governing board and/or membership is comprised of
at least 75 percent minority.
Rural Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities Grants
For grants in connection with second and third rounds of
empowerment zones and enterprise communities, $11,088,000, to
remain available until expended, for designated rural
empowerment zones and rural enterprise communities, as
authorized by the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 and the Omnibus
Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act,
1999 (Public Law 105-277): Provided, That of the funds
appropriated, $1,000,000 shall be made available to third
round empowerment zones, as authorized by the Community
Renewal Tax Relief Act (Public Law 106-554).
Renewable Energy Program
For the cost of a program of direct loans, loan guarantees,
and grants, under the same terms and conditions as authorized
by section 9006 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act
of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8106), $20,000,000 for direct and
guaranteed renewable energy loans and grants: Provided, That
the cost of direct loans and loan guarantees, including the
cost of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section
502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
Rural Utilities Service
Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program Account
(including transfer of funds)
Insured loans pursuant to the authority of section 305 of
the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 935) shall be
made as follows: 5 percent rural electrification loans,
$99,018,000; municipal rate rural electric loans,
$99,000,000; loans made pursuant to section 306 of that Act,
rural electric loans, $3,000,000,000; Treasury rate direct
electric loans, $990,000,000; guaranteed underwriting loans
pursuant to section 313A, $500,000,000; 5 percent rural
telecommunications loans, $143,513,000; cost of money rural
telecommunications loans, $246,666,000; and for loans made
pursuant to section 306 of that Act, rural telecommunications
loans, $299,000,000.
For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, including the cost of
modifying loans, of direct and guaranteed loans authorized by
sections 305 and 306 of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936
(7 U.S.C. 935 and 936), as follows: cost of rural electric
loans, $3,614,000, and the cost of telecommunications loans,
$605,000: Provided, That notwithstanding section 305(d)(2) of
the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, borrower interest
rates may exceed 7 percent per year.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $39,101,000
which shall be transferred to and merged with the
appropriation for ``Rural Development, Salaries and
Expenses''.
Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program
For the principal amount of broadband telecommunication
loans, $503,535,000.
For grants for telemedicine and distance learning services
in rural areas, as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 950aaa et seq.,
$24,750,000, to remain available until expended.
For the cost of broadband loans, as authorized by 7 U.S.C.
901 et seq., $10,826,000, to remain available until September
30, 2008: Provided, That the interest rate for such loans
shall be the cost of borrowing to the Department of the
Treasury for obligations of comparable maturity: Provided
further, That the cost of direct loans shall be as defined in
section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
In addition, $8,910,000, to remain available until
expended, for a grant program to finance broadband
transmission in rural areas eligible for Distance Learning
and Telemedicine Program benefits authorized by 7 U.S.C.
950aaa.
TITLE IV
DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services
For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services to
administer the laws enacted by the Congress for the Food and
Nutrition Service, $652,000.
Food and Nutrition Service
Child Nutrition Programs
(including transfers of funds)
For necessary expenses to carry out the National School
Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.), except section 21, and
the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.),
except sections 17 and 21; $13,345,487,000, to remain
available through September 30, 2008, of which $7,610,897,000
is hereby appropriated and $5,734,590,000 shall be derived by
transfer from funds available under section 32 of the
[[Page H3074]]
Act of August 24, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c): Provided, That up to
$5,335,000 shall be available for independent verification of
school food service claims.
special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children
(WIC)
For necessary expenses to carry out the special
supplemental nutrition program as authorized by section 17 of
the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786),
$5,244,000,000, to remain available through September 30,
2008, of which such sums as are necessary to restore the
contingency reserve to $125,000,000 shall be placed in
reserve, to remain available until expended, to be allocated
as the Secretary deems necessary, notwithstanding section
17(i) of such Act, to support participation should cost or
participation exceed budget estimates: Provided, That amounts
over $125,000,000 in the contingency reserve shall be treated
as general WIC appropriated funds rather than contingency
reserve funds: Provided further, That of the total amount
available, the Secretary shall obligate not less than
$15,000,000 for a breastfeeding support initiative in
addition to the activities specified in section 17(h)(3)(A):
Provided further, That notwithstanding section 17(h)(10)(A)
of such Act, only the provisions of section 17(h)(10)(B)(i)
and section 17(h)(10)(B)(ii) shall be effective in 2007;
including $14,000,000 for the purposes specified in section
17(h)(10)(B)(i) and $20,000,000 for the purposes specified in
section 17(h)(10)(B)(ii): Provided further, That funds made
available for the purposes specified in section
17(h)(10)(B)(ii) shall only be made available upon a
determination by the Secretary that funds are available to
meet caseload requirements without the use of the contingency
reserve funds: Provided further, That none of the funds made
available under this heading shall be used for studies and
evaluations: Provided further, That none of the funds in this
Act shall be available to pay administrative expenses of WIC
clinics except those that have an announced policy of
prohibiting smoking within the space used to carry out the
program: Provided further, That none of the funds provided in
this account shall be available for the purchase of infant
formula except in accordance with the cost containment and
competitive bidding requirements specified in section 17 of
such Act: Provided further, That none of the funds provided
shall be available for activities that are not fully
reimbursed by other Federal Government departments or
agencies unless authorized by section 17 of such Act.
food stamp program
For necessary expenses to carry out the Food Stamp Act (7
U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), $37,865,231,000, of which
$3,000,000,000 to remain available through September 30,
2008, shall be placed in reserve for use only in such amounts
and at such times as may become necessary to carry out
program operations: Provided, That funds provided herein
shall be expended in accordance with section 16 of the Food
Stamp Act: Provided further, That this appropriation shall be
subject to any work registration or workfare requirements as
may be required by law: Provided further, That funds made
available for Employment and Training under this heading
shall remain available until expended, as authorized by
section 16(h)(1) of the Food Stamp Act: Provided further,
That notwithstanding section 5(d) of the Food Stamp Act of
1977, any additional payment received under chapter 5 of
title 37, United States Code, by a member of the United
States Armed Forces deployed to a designated combat zone
shall be excluded from household income for the duration of
the member's deployment if the additional pay is the result
of deployment to or while serving in a combat zone, and it
was not received immediately prior to serving in the combat
zone.
commodity assistance program
For necessary expenses to carry out disaster assistance and
the commodity supplemental food program, as authorized by
section 4(a) of the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act
of 1973 (7 U.S.C. 612c note); the Emergency Food Assistance
Act of 1983; special assistance for the nuclear affected
islands, as authorized by section 103(f)(2) of the Compact of
Free Association Amendments Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-188);
and the Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, as authorized by
section 17(m) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966,
$189,370,000, to remain available through September 30, 2008:
Provided, That none of these funds shall be available to
reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for commodities
donated to the program: Provided further, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, effective with
funds made available in fiscal year 2007 to support the
Seniors Farmers' Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP), as
authorized by section 4402 of Public Law 107-171, such funds
shall remain available through September 30, 2008: Provided
further, That no funds available for SFMNP in fiscal year
2007 shall be used to pay State or local sales taxes on food
purchased with SFMNP coupons or checks: Provided further,
That the value of assistance provided by the SFMNP shall not
be considered income or resources for any purposes under any
Federal, State or local laws related to taxation, welfare and
public assistance programs: Provided further, That of the
funds made available under section 27(a) of the Food Stamp
Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), the Secretary may use up
to $10,000,000 for costs associated with the distribution of
commodities.
nutrition programs administration
For necessary administrative expenses of the domestic
nutrition assistance programs funded under this Act,
$142,314,000.
TITLE V
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS
Foreign Agricultural Service
salaries and expenses
(including transfers of funds)
For necessary expenses of the Foreign Agricultural Service,
including carrying out title VI of the Agricultural Act of
1954 (7 U.S.C. 1761-1768), market development activities
abroad, and for enabling the Secretary to coordinate and
integrate activities of the Department in connection with
foreign agricultural work, including not to exceed $158,000
for representation allowances and for expenses pursuant to
section 8 of the Act approved August 3, 1956 (7 U.S.C. 1766),
$156,486,000: Provided, That the Service may utilize advances
of funds, or reimburse this appropriation for expenditures
made on behalf of Federal agencies, public and private
organizations and institutions under agreements executed
pursuant to the agricultural food production assistance
programs (7 U.S.C. 1737) and the foreign assistance programs
of the United States Agency for International Development.
public law 480 title i direct credit and food for progress program
account
(including transfer of funds)
For administrative expenses to carry out the credit program
of title I, Public Law 83-480, $2,651,000, to be transferred
to and merged with the appropriation for ``Farm Service
Agency, Salaries and Expenses''.
public law 480 title ii grants
For expenses during the current fiscal year, not otherwise
recoverable, and unrecovered prior years' costs, including
interest thereon, under the Agricultural Trade Development
and Assistance Act of 1954, for commodities supplied in
connection with dispositions abroad under title II of said
Act, $1,223,100,000, to remain available until expended.
commodity credit corporation export loans program account
(including transfers of funds)
For administrative expenses to carry out the Commodity
Credit Corporation's export guarantee program, GSM 102 and
GSM 103, $5,331,000; to cover common overhead expenses as
permitted by section 11 of the Commodity Credit Corporation
Charter Act and in conformity with the Federal Credit Reform
Act of 1990, of which $4,985,000 may be transferred to and
merged with the appropriation for ``Foreign Agricultural
Service, Salaries and Expenses'', including $775,000 to be
made available for debt recovery, and of which $346,000 may
be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for
``Farm Service Agency, Salaries and Expenses''.
McGovern-Dole International Food For Education and Child Nutrition
Program Grants
For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of
section 3107 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of
2002 (7 U.S.C. 1736o-1), $100,000,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That the Commodity Credit
Corporation is authorized to provide the services,
facilities, and authorities for the purpose of implementing
such section, subject to reimbursement from amounts provided
herein.
TITLE VI
RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Food and Drug Administration,
including hire and purchase of passenger motor vehicles; for
payment of space rental and related costs pursuant to Public
Law 92-313 for programs and activities of the Food and Drug
Administration which are included in this Act; for rental of
special purpose space in the District of Columbia or
elsewhere; for miscellaneous and emergency expenses of
enforcement activities, authorized and approved by the
Secretary and to be accounted for solely on the Secretary's
certificate, not to exceed $25,000; and notwithstanding
section 521 of Public Law 107-188; $1,914,382,000: Provided,
That of the amount provided under this heading, $320,600,000
shall be derived from prescription drug user fees authorized
by 21 U.S.C. 379h, shall be credited to this account and
remain available until expended, and shall not include any
fees pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 379h(a)(2) and (a)(3) assessed for
fiscal year 2008 but collected in fiscal year 2007;
$43,726,000 shall be derived from medical device user fees
authorized by 21 U.S.C. 379j, and shall be credited to this
account and remain available until expended; and $11,604,000
shall be derived from animal drug user fees authorized by 21
U.S.C. 379j, and shall be credited to this account and remain
available until expended: Provided further, That fees derived
from prescription drug, medical device, and animal drug
assessments received during fiscal year 2007, including any
such fees assessed prior to the current fiscal year but
credited during the current year, shall be subject to the
fiscal year 2007 limitation: Provided further, That none of
these funds shall be used to develop, establish, or operate
any program of user fees authorized
[[Page H3075]]
by 31 U.S.C. 9701: Provided further, That of the total amount
appropriated: (1) $454,006,000 shall be for the Center for
Food Safety and Applied Nutrition and related field
activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs; (2)
$545,938,000 shall be for the Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research and related field activities in the Office of
Regulatory Affairs; (3) $194,637,000 shall be for the Center
for Biologics Evaluation and Research and for related field
activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs; (4)
$105,595,000 shall be for the Center for Veterinary Medicine
and for related field activities in the Office of Regulatory
Affairs; (5) $253,789,000 shall be for the Center for Devices
and Radiological Health and for related field activities in
the Office of Regulatory Affairs; (6) $34,118,000 shall be
for the National Center for Toxicological Research; (7)
$62,007,000 shall be for Rent and Related activities, of
which $25,552,000 is for White Oak Consolidation, other than
the amounts paid to the General Services Administration for
rent; (8) $146,013,000 shall be for payments to the General
Services Administration for rent; and (9) $118,279,000 shall
be for other activities, including the Office of the
Commissioner; the Office of Management; the Office of
External Relations; the Office of Policy and Planning; and
central services for these offices: Provided further, That
funds may be transferred from one specified activity to
another with the prior approval of the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
In addition, mammography user fees authorized by 42 U.S.C.
263b may be credited to this account, to remain available
until expended.
In addition, export certification user fees authorized by
21 U.S.C. 381 may be credited to this account, to remain
available until expended.
buildings and facilities
For plans, construction, repair, improvement, extension,
alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities of
or used by the Food and Drug Administration, where not
otherwise provided, $4,950,000, to remain available until
expended.
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the
Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), including the
purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles, and the rental
of space (to include multiple year leases) in the District of
Columbia and elsewhere, $109,402,000, including not to exceed
$3,000 for official reception and representation expenses.
Farm Credit Administration
Limitation on Administrative Expenses
Not to exceed $44,250,000 (from assessments collected from
farm credit institutions and from the Federal Agricultural
Mortgage Corporation) shall be obligated during the current
fiscal year for administrative expenses as authorized under
12 U.S.C. 2249: Provided, That this limitation shall not
apply to expenses associated with receiverships.
TITLE VII
GENERAL PROVISIONS
(including rescissions and transfers of funds)
Sec. 701. Within the unit limit of cost fixed by law,
appropriations and authorizations made for the Department of
Agriculture for the current fiscal year under this Act shall
be available for the purchase, in addition to those
specifically provided for, of not to exceed 292 passenger
motor vehicles, of which 290 shall be for replacement only,
and for the hire of such vehicles.
Sec. 702. New obligational authority provided for the
following appropriation items in this Act shall remain
available until expended: Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, the contingency fund to meet emergency conditions,
information technology infrastructure, fruit fly program,
emerging plant pests, cotton pests program, low pathogen
avian influenza program, high pathogen avian influenza
program, up to $33,107,000 in animal health monitoring and
surveillance for the animal identification system, up to
$682,000 in the brucellosis program for indemnities, up to
$2,888,000 in the chronic wasting disease program for
indemnities, up to $3,934,000 in the scrapie program for
indemnities, up to $2,387,000 in the tuberculosis program for
indemnities, up to $4,900,000 in the emergency management
systems program for the vaccine bank, up to $1,000,000 for
wildlife services methods development, up to $1,000,000 of
the wildlife services operations program for aviation safety,
and up to 25 percent of the screwworm program; Food Safety
and Inspection Service, field automation and information
management project; Cooperative State Research, Education,
and Extension Service, funds for competitive research grants
(7 U.S.C. 450i(b)), funds for the Research, Education, and
Economics Information System, and funds for the Native
American Institutions Endowment Fund; Farm Service Agency,
salaries and expenses funds made available to county
committees; Foreign Agricultural Service, middle-income
country training program, and up to $2,000,000 of the Foreign
Agricultural Service appropriation solely for the purpose of
offsetting fluctuations in international currency exchange
rates, subject to documentation by the Foreign Agricultural
Service.
Sec. 703. The Secretary of Agriculture may transfer
unobligated balances of discretionary funds appropriated by
this Act or other available unobligated discretionary
balances of the Department of Agriculture to the Working
Capital Fund for the acquisition of plant and capital
equipment necessary for the delivery of financial, financial
management modernization initiative, administrative, and
information technology services of primary benefit to the
agencies of the Department of Agriculture: Provided, That
none of the funds made available by this Act or any other Act
shall be transferred to the Working Capital Fund without the
prior approval of the agency administrator: Provided further,
That none of the funds transferred to the Working Capital
Fund pursuant to this section shall be available for
obligation without the prior approval of the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
Sec. 704. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 705. No funds appropriated by this Act may be used to
pay negotiated indirect cost rates on cooperative agreements
or similar arrangements between the United States Department
of Agriculture and nonprofit institutions in excess of 10
percent of the total direct cost of the agreement when the
purpose of such cooperative arrangements is to carry out
programs of mutual interest between the two parties. This
does not preclude appropriate payment of indirect costs on
grants and contracts with such institutions when such
indirect costs are computed on a similar basis for all
agencies for which appropriations are provided in this Act.
Sec. 706. None of the funds in this Act shall be available
to pay indirect costs charged against competitive
agricultural research, education, or extension grant awards
issued by the Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service that exceed 22 percent of total Federal
funds provided under each award: Provided, That
notwithstanding section 1462 of the National Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7
U.S.C. 3310), funds provided by this Act for grants awarded
competitively by the Cooperative State Research, Education,
and Extension Service shall be available to pay full
allowable indirect costs for each grant awarded under section
9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638).
Sec. 707. Appropriations to the Department of Agriculture
for the cost of direct and guaranteed loans made available in
the current fiscal year shall remain available until expended
to disburse obligations made in the current fiscal year for
the following accounts: the Rural Development Loan Fund
program account, the Rural Electrification and
Telecommunication Loans program account, and the Rural
Housing Insurance Fund program account.
Sec. 708. Of the funds made available by this Act, not more
than $1,800,000 shall be used to cover necessary expenses of
activities related to all advisory committees, panels,
commissions, and task forces of the Department of
Agriculture, except for panels used to comply with negotiated
rule makings and panels used to evaluate competitively
awarded grants.
Sec. 709. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used to carry out section 410 of the Federal Meat Inspection
Act (21 U.S.C. 679a) or section 30 of the Poultry Products
Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 471).
Sec. 710. No employee of the Department of Agriculture may
be detailed or assigned from an agency or office funded by
this Act to any other agency or office of the Department for
more than 30 days unless the individual's employing agency or
office is fully reimbursed by the receiving agency or office
for the salary and expenses of the employee for the period of
assignment.
Sec. 711. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available to the Department of Agriculture or the Food and
Drug Administration shall be used to transmit or otherwise
make available to any non-Department of Agriculture or non-
Department of Health and Human Services employee questions or
responses to questions that are a result of information
requested for the appropriations hearing process.
Sec. 712. None of the funds made available to the
Department of Agriculture by this Act may be used to acquire
new information technology systems or significant upgrades,
as determined by the Office of the Chief Information Officer,
without the approval of the Chief Information Officer and the
concurrence of the Executive Information Technology
Investment Review Board: Provided, That notwithstanding any
other provision of law, none of the funds appropriated or
otherwise made available by this Act may be transferred to
the Office of the Chief Information Officer without the prior
approval of the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses
of Congress: Provided further, That none of the funds
available to the Department of Agriculture for information
technology shall be obligated for projects over $25,000 prior
to receipt of written approval by the Chief Information
Officer.
Sec. 713. (a) None of the funds provided by this Act, or
provided by previous Appropriations Acts to the agencies
funded by this Act that remain available for obligation or
expenditure in the current fiscal year, or provided from any
accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the
collection of fees available to the agencies funded by this
Act, shall be available for obligation or expenditure through
a reprogramming of funds which--
(1) creates new programs;
(2) eliminates a program, project, or activity;
[[Page H3076]]
(3) increases funds or personnel by any means for any
project or activity for which funds have been denied or
restricted;
(4) relocates an office or employees;
(5) reorganizes offices, programs, or activities; or
(6) contracts out or privatizes any functions or activities
presently performed by Federal employees; unless the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress are
notified 15 days in advance of such reprogramming of funds.
(b) None of the funds provided by this Act, or provided by
previous Appropriations Acts to the agencies funded by this
Act that remain available for obligation or expenditure in
the current fiscal year, or provided from any accounts in the
Treasury of the United States derived by the collection of
fees available to the agencies funded by this Act, shall be
available for obligation or expenditure for activities,
programs, or projects through a reprogramming of funds in
excess of $500,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, that:
(1) augments existing programs, projects, or activities; (2)
reduces by 10 percent funding for any existing program,
project, or activity, or numbers of personnel by 10 percent
as approved by Congress; or (3) results from any general
savings from a reduction in personnel which would result in a
change in existing programs, activities, or projects as
approved by Congress; unless the Committees on Appropriations
of both Houses of Congress are notified 15 days in advance of
such reprogramming of funds.
(c) The Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Health
and Human Services, or the Chairman of the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission shall notify the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress before implementing
a program or activity not carried out during the previous
fiscal year unless the program or activity is funded by this
Act or specifically funded by any other Act.
Sec. 714. None of the funds appropriated by this or any
other Act shall be used to pay the salaries and expenses of
personnel who prepare or submit appropriations language as
part of the President's Budget submission to the Congress of
the United States for programs under the jurisdiction of the
Appropriations Subcommittees on Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies that assumes revenues or reflects a reduction from
the previous year due to user fees proposals that have not
been enacted into law prior to the submission of the Budget
unless such Budget submission identifies which additional
spending reductions should occur in the event the user fees
proposals are not enacted prior to the date of the convening
of a committee of conference for the fiscal year 2008
Appropriations Act.
Sec. 715. None of the funds made available by this or any
other Act may be used to close or relocate a State Rural
Development office unless or until cost effectiveness and
enhancement of program delivery have been determined.
Sec. 716. In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated or
made available by this Act, $2,500,000 is appropriated for
the purpose of providing Bill Emerson and Mickey Leland
Hunger Fellowships, through the Congressional Hunger Center.
Sec. 717. There is hereby appropriated $250,000 for a grant
to the National Sheep Industry Improvement Center, to remain
available until expended.
Sec. 718. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of
the funds made available in this Act for competitive research
grants (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)), the Secretary may use up to 30
percent of the amount provided to carry out a competitive
grants program under the same terms and conditions as those
provided in section 401 of the Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7621).
Sec. 719. No funds shall be used to pay salaries and
expenses of the Department of Agriculture to carry out or
administer the program authorized by section 14(h)(1) of the
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C.
1012(h)(1)).
Sec. 720. No funds shall be used to pay salaries and
expenses of the Department of Agriculture to carry out or
administer the calendar year 2007 wetlands reserve program as
authorized by 16 U.S.C. 3837 in excess of 144,776 acres.
Sec. 721. No funds shall be used to pay salaries and
expenses of the Department of Agriculture to carry out or
administer an environmental quality incentives program
authorized by chapter 4 of subtitle D of title XII of the
Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa et seq.) in
excess of $1,087,000,000.
Sec. 722. No funds shall be used to pay salaries and
expenses of the Department of Agriculture to carry out or
administer a program authorized by section 601(j)(1) of the
Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 950bb(j)(1)).
Sec. 723. None of the funds made available in fiscal year
2006 or preceding fiscal years for programs authorized under
the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954
(7 U.S.C. 1691 et seq.) in excess of $20,000,000 shall be
used to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for the
release of eligible commodities under section 302(f)(2)(A) of
the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust Act (7 U.S.C. 1736f-1):
Provided, That any such funds made available to reimburse the
Commodity Credit Corporation shall only be used pursuant to
section 302(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Bill Emerson Humanitarian
Trust Act.
Sec. 724. No funds shall be used to pay salaries and
expenses of the Department of Agriculture to carry out or
administer a program authorized by section 6401 of Public Law
107-171, in excess of $28,000,000.
Sec. 725. Notwithstanding subsections (c) and (e)(2) of
section 313A of the Rural Electrification Act (7 U.S.C.
940c(c) and (e)(2)) in implementing section 313A of that Act,
the Secretary shall, with the consent of the lender,
structure the schedule for payment of the annual fee, not to
exceed an average of 30 basis points per year for the term of
the loan, to ensure that sufficient funds are available to
pay the subsidy costs for note guarantees under that section.
Sec. 726. No funds shall be used to pay salaries and
expenses of the Department of Agriculture to carry out or
administer a conservation security program authorized by 16
U.S.C. 3838 et seq., in excess of $280,173,000.
Sec. 727. No funds shall be used to pay salaries and
expenses of the Department of Agriculture to carry out or
administer a program authorized by section 2502 of Public Law
107-171, in excess of $55,000,000.
Sec. 728. No funds shall be used to pay salaries and
expenses of the Department of Agriculture to carry out or
administer a program authorized by section 2503 of Public Law
107-171, in excess of $50,000,000.
Sec. 729. No funds shall be used to pay salaries and
expenses of the Department of Agriculture to carry out or
administer a ground and surface water conservation program
authorized by section 2301 of Public Law 107-171, in excess
of $51,000,000.
Sec. 730. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to issue a final rule in furtherance of, or otherwise
implement, the proposed rule on cost-sharing for animal and
plant health emergency programs of the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service published on July 8, 2003 (Docket
No. 02-062-1; 68 Fed. Reg. 40541).
Sec. 731. Funds made available under section 1240I and
section 1241(a) of the Food Security Act of 1985 in the
current fiscal year shall remain available until expended to
disburse obligations made in the current fiscal year, and are
not available for new obligations. Funds made available under
section 524(b) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act, 7 U.S.C.
1524(b), in fiscal years 2004, 2005, and 2006 shall remain
available until expended to disburse obligations made in
fiscal years 2004, 2005, and 2006, respectively, and are not
available for new obligations.
Sec. 732. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, Rural
Development shall provide grants from funds available for the
Rural Community Advancement Program for the Ohio Livestock
Expo Center in Springfield, Ohio, in an amount not to exceed
$1,000,000.
Sec. 733. No funds shall be used to pay salaries and
expenses of the Department of Agriculture to carry out or
administer an agricultural management assistance program
authorized by section 524 of the Federal Crop Insurance Act,
in excess of $6,000,000 (7 U.S.C. 1524).
Sec. 734. None of the funds provided in this Act may be
used for salaries and expenses to draft or implement any
regulation or rule insofar as it would require
recertification of rural status for each electric and
telecommunications borrower for the Rural Electrification and
Telecommunication Loans program.
Sec. 735. Unless otherwise authorized by existing law, none
of the funds provided in this Act, may be used by an
executive branch agency to produce any prepackaged news story
intended for broadcast or distribution in the United States
unless the story includes a clear notification within the
text or audio of the prepackaged news story that the
prepackaged news story was prepared or funded by that
executive branch agency.
Sec. 736. In addition to other amounts appropriated or
otherwise made available by this Act, there is hereby
appropriated to the Secretary of Agriculture $15,600,000, of
which not to exceed 5 percent may be available for
administrative expenses, to remain available until expended,
to make specialty crop block grants under section 101 of the
Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-
465; 7 U.S.C. 1621 note).
Sec. 737. No funds shall be used to pay salaries and
expenses of the Department of Agriculture to carry out or
administer a program authorized by section 18(g)(6)(B)(i) of
the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C.
1769(g)(6)(B)(i)).
Sec. 738. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, there
is hereby appropriated $25,000,000, of which not to exceed 5
percent may be available for administrative expenses, to
carry out section 18(g) of the Richard B. Russell National
School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1769(g) in each State and on
Indian reservations.
Sec. 739. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to study, complete a study of, or enter into a
contract with a private party to carry out, without specific
authorization in a subsequent Act of Congress, a competitive
sourcing activity of the Secretary of Agriculture, including
support personnel of the Department of Agriculture, relating
to rural development or farm loan programs.
Sec. 740. Of the unobligated balances under section 32 of
the Act of August 24, 1935, $9,900,000 are hereby rescinded.
Sec. 741. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act shall be used to pay salaries and
expenses of personnel who implement or administer section
508(e)(3) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7
[[Page H3077]]
U.S.C. 1508(e)(3)) or any regulation, bulletin, policy or
agency guidance issued pursuant to section 508(e)(3) of such
Act for the 2007 and the 2008 reinsurance years, except that
funds are available to administer section 508(e)(3) of the
Federal Crop Insurance Act for policies in effect as of the
date of enactment of this Act.
Sec. 742. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used--
(1) to grant a waiver of a financial conflict of interest
requirement pursuant to section 505(n)(4) of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act for any voting member of an
advisory committee or panel of the Food and Drug
Administration; or
(2) to make a certification under section 208(b)(3) of
title 18, United States Code, for any such voting member.
Sec. 743. Section 739 of the Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies Appropriation Act, 2001 (H.R. 5426 as enacted by
Public Law 106-387, 115 Stat. 1549A-34) is amended by
striking ``2 percent'' and inserting ``3 percent''.
Sec. 744. Of the unobligated balances available in the High
Energy Cost Grants account, $25,265,000 is hereby rescinded.
Sec. 745. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for
the purposes of title V of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C.
1471 et seq.), the Secretary of Agriculture shall consider
the City of Atascadero, California, the City of Paso Robles,
California, the City of Freeport, Illinois, and Kitsap County
(except the City of Bremerton), Washington, as meeting the
requirements of a rural area contained in section 520 of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 1490) until the receipt of the decennial
Census in the year 2010.
Sec. 746. Of the appropriations available for payments for
the nutrition and family education program for low-income
areas under section 3(d) of the Smith-Lever Act (7 U.S.C.
343(d)), if the payment allocation pursuant to section
1425(c) of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3175(c)) would be less
than $100,000 for any institution eligible under section
3(d)(2) of the Smith-Lever Act, the Secretary shall adjust
payment allocations under section 1425(c) of the National
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of
1977 to ensure that each institution receives a payment of
not less than $100,000.
Sec. 747. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to implement the final rule published by the
Secretary of Agriculture on April 24, 2006, amending part 381
of title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations to add the
People's Republic of China to the list of countries eligible
to export poultry products to the United States.
Sec. 748. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to prohibit the use of non-government electronic
certification forms that verify properly certified results of
equine infectious anemia testing for the purpose of
interstate or international shipment of tested animals.
{time} 1430
Point of Order
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I rise to make a point of order against section 749,
which begins on page 80, line 19, and ends on page 81, line 7, because
it violates rule XXI, clause 2, which prohibits legislative language in
a general appropriations bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair finds that this section directly amends
existing law. This section, therefore, constitutes legislation in
violation of clause 2, rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained, and the section is stricken from the
bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 750. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act for the Food and Drug Administration
may be used under section 801 of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act to prevent an individual not in the business of
importing a prescription drug within the meaning of section
801(g) of such Act, wholesalers, or pharmacists from
importing a prescription drug which complies with sections
501, 502, and 505.
Point of Order
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the
language beginning with, ``The Secretary of Health and Human
Services,'' on page 81, line 16, through, ``Food, Drug and Cosmetic
Act,'' on page 82, line 5, violates clause 2 of rule XXI of the rules
of the House which prohibits legislation on appropriations bills.
The language that I have cited permits the Secretary of HHS to
require the holder of an approved application for a drug to conduct
studies to refute proposed theories. This language clearly constitutes
legislating on an appropriations bill and, as such, violates clause 2
of rule XXI.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I regret that my friend has moved to
strike this language, particularly given the GAO's recent findings.
The FDA needs the authority to mandate post-marketing drug studies
when needed, and indeed, the General Accountability Office has issued a
very harsh report of the post-market studies saying, and I quote, FDA
lacks clear and effective processes for making decisions about and
providing management oversight of post-market safety issues. They
further say that, to improve the decision-making process for post-
market drug safety, Congress should consider expanding FDA's authority
to require drug sponsors to conduct post-market studies, such as
clinical trials or observational studies, as needed, to collect
additional data on drug safety issues.
The FDA is under increasing pressure to approve new drugs quickly.
Some of us have been concerned by the implication of the approval
process. Since 2000, ten drugs have been withdrawn for safety reasons
by their manufacturers, all voluntarily. As far back as 1996, when the
inspector general at HHS looked into the matter, it found that the FDA
lacked an appropriate system for monitoring or tracking the status of
the post-market----
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman would confine her remarks to the
substance of the point of order.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, no one is accusing FDA of willful
negligence. There can be innocent reasons why this study is not done,
but the fact is the FDA needs to have authority in order to assure that
we are not putting lives at risk with unsafe drugs that are not fully
tested.
This language would ensure that they have the authority. Prescription
drugs are the foundation of modern medical treatment. The public's
interest is being preserved by having the FDA have this authority.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will remind the gentlewoman that her remarks
must be confined to the substance of the point of order.
{time} 1445
If no other Members wish to be heard on the point of order, the Chair
is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this section confers authority on the Executive.
The section, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause
2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained and the section is
stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 752. Section 1502(c)(3) of the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7982(c)(3)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``August 31, 2007, 34
percent; and'' and inserting ``September 30, 2007, 34
percent.''; and
(3) by striking subparagraph (C).
Point of Order
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section
752.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I raise a point of order against page 82, line 6,
ending on page 82, line 17, because it violates rule XXI, clause 2,
which prohibits legislative language in a general appropriations bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Does anybody wish to be heard on the point of order? If
not, the Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
The Chair finds that this section directly amends existing law. This
section, therefore, constitutes legislate in violation of clause 2 of
rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained, and the section is stricken from the
bill.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, in less than 6 months, farmers will begin to plan for
the next crop year. Without extending the storage and handling fee
program for peanuts, all over the Southeast there will be problems in
the ag world. As we know, when we did away with the peanut quota
program, the farmers went from a support price of over $600 down to
$355. Now, in exchange for such a reduction in the support price and
elimination of the quota program, farmers
[[Page H3078]]
were also successful in negotiating a $50 per ton storage and handling
fee.
The reason why this was important is because when peanuts are ready
to harvest, the market might not be at the optimal selling price for
the peanuts. Likewise, when the shellers and the folks in manufacturing
and processing need peanuts, there might at times be an abundance and
at other times there might be a deficit. So for everyone involved in
the peanut food chain, having a good storage and handling program is
important. You can't just put peanuts in any warehouse and keep them in
fresh order. You have to have a specialized warehouse, and that is why
this program is important.
This program is important not just to those in the peanut business
directly, the farmer, the producer, the processor, the user, and the
shelling facility; but it is also important for rural southeast
America. The peanut program is bigger in poor counties across the
southeastern States. You don't have a problem with the peanut program
in Atlanta, Georgia, or in Birmingham, Alabama, or St. Simons Island,
Georgia, or Savannah, Georgia. You have it in the small areas, like
Cook County and Berien County and Candler County and Bulloch County,
counties that do not have the growth in many cases of those in the
urban areas.
This program has been successful from South Carolina to southern
Mississippi to Alabama. Just one example: in Donalsonville, Georgia,
the American Peanut Growers Group, a co-op comprised of 85 different
peanut producers, invested in a shelling facility after the last farm
bill and created 50 new full-time jobs and six new buying points
throughout the region, a great success story.
In Tifton, Georgia, over $18 million has been invested in a new dome
storage peanut shelling facility that employs 60 people. This is a
product of 56 different peanut producers in making this shelling plant.
Examples of this are all over here. And I know the gentleman from
Alabama is here and he has seen it from his own area, but even though
the chairman of the Ag Committee has been a good supporter of farm
programs and the peanut program, striking this language on a point of
order actually hurts us at this time. Because as these peanut farmers
are making growing decisions, we have just taken away one of the great
economic tools they need to successfully decide if they are going to be
planting peanuts or planting corn or planting soybeans or cotton.
What I would say to the members of the committee is as this bill
moves through the process without this language in it, it is quite
likely our friends in the other body will restore this language, and I
am hoping that the Senators from Georgia are able to do that. The
language was put in the bill by me, Mr. Bishop, and Congressman Boyd,
bipartisan support and southeastern agriculture support, and we are
hoping to get it restored at some point along the line.
So I just wanted to come down here on the point of order to make sure
folks know that even though this is going to be stricken today, we do
feel like it does not kill this, but for the time being.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend Mr. Kingston for his work on this
issue. This is an issue that we have worked very closely with the
authorizers on to try to fix this program because it expired, as the
gentleman said. Mr. Kingston has been a real leader, as has Senator
Chambliss on the other side of the Capitol, in trying to address this
issue.
I am very grateful the gentleman came to the floor today to address
the concerns, because they needed to be exposed rather than just rule
on the technicality that was before us. The gentleman understood that
the peanut issue was subject to a point of order and nonetheless fought
the good fight to the very end.
So I would just like to commend the gentleman for his work in this
area.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BONILLA. I would be happy to yield to my good friend from
Alabama.
Mr. EVERETT. I thank the chairman, and Mr. Kingston has adequately
explained the situation that we are in. This handling and storage fee
is absolutely critical for the peanut farmers in these very small rural
towns that we all represent.
One thing that might be noted is that in the last farm bill, which I
had the privilege of being the subcommittee chairman that wrote this
peanut title, this was put in there to help the farmers and the
shellers transition into a more market-based program. The problem that
we have gotten into is because I believe that the USDA has not followed
the word and/or spirit of the peanut title, in that they have kept
these peanuts, we have had about 2 or 3 years of great peanut crops,
and they have kept these peanuts in loan. That has not created a market
that we intended to create. They have not moved these peanuts out of
loan, which we fully intended for them to do.
They have to understand if it is a budget thing, it is either pay now
or pay later. But the longer they keep them in there, the less those
peanuts are going to be worth and they will go out to people for almost
nothing.
So I appreciate Mr. Kingston for putting this language in there, and
I further appreciate the chairman. I understand my full committee
chairman on the authorizing side is trying to protect the committee's
privileges, and also my friend from Texas, Mr. Bonilla, I appreciate
the words that he had concerning this issue and, hopefully, we can do
something in conference about it.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks and,
in closing, there are oftentimes issues like this that come before us
that as appropriators you never know what is around the next corner
with legislation that is being put in our lap that has a profound
impact above and beyond dollar figures that we debate on every day in
our committee.
So, again, I realize and all of us realize this is a very serious
issue that needs to be addressed.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I simply want to express my chagrin at the fact that
the chairman of the authorizing committee has exercised a point of
order against the provision in the appropriation bill, section 752,
which would have corrected a gross shortcoming in the dairy program.
The fact is that with the language in the appropriation bill being
stricken, we will now face the situation under which dairy will be at a
distinct disadvantage when the farm bill is renewed in 2007 because the
authorization committee arranged in previous legislation to see to it
that the milk program expired one month before the end of the fiscal
year. What that means is that evidently the Agriculture Committee
majority desires to see the supplemental milk payment program die.
I hope that every small dairy farmer in America takes note of that
fact. It is a pretty clear indication of whose side people are on. And
I simply want to make the observation that this provision that required
the milk program to expire 1 month early was not done for any policy
reason. It was done as a gimmick to get around the budget act. And it
is another illustration of the fact that when our principal goal is to
find whatever parliamentary gimmicks we can find in order to fit
programs into a defined box, then real people get hurt. The fact is
that there will be many small dairy farmers who go out of business if
they do not have the support that comes from that supplemental milk
payment program.
So, Mr. Chairman, I regret very much the gentleman felt required to
do that. I hope that dairy farmers will take note of the fact that the
only possible dairy farmers who could benefit from this are the giant
operators, the 1,000- and 2,000-cow herd operators, but the average
dairy farmer in the United States is hurt by the action that was taken
today, and I hope they take that into account when they go to the polls
in November.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the point of order that
was offered by my good friend, the chairman of the Agriculture
Committee, Mr. Goodlatte, and in support of the peanut storage and
handling language that was included in the 2007 agriculture
appropriations bill.
As the Representative of the Second Congressional District of
Georgia,
[[Page H3079]]
which I am proud to say is the largest peanut producing district in the
Nation, I would like to lend my full support and endorsement of
language that was included in the bill extending the peanut storage and
handling program for an additional year.
During consideration of the 2002 farm bill, the peanut industry,
including growers, manufacturers, and processors, asked that the House
Agriculture Committee change the Nation's peanut program from a supply
management structure to a more market-oriented program.
At the time, I had the pleasure of serving as a member of the
Agriculture Committee. The House Ag Committee made these changes,
working in cooperation with the peanut industry, and the transition to
the new market-oriented program was a part of a very carefully crafted
compromise that was developed and approved by the House Agriculture
Committee.
{time} 1500
The 2002 farm bill provided storage, handling fees and related costs
for the peanut program through the 2006 crop year. Our concern centered
on the fact that growers would have to absorb the storage costs
associated with peanuts placed under loan.
The language included in the committee bill would simply continue the
peanut storage and handling fees program through 2007, terminating at
the beginning of fiscal year 2008. The language was reviewed by the CBO
and will not have a 2007 cost, primarily because the payments will come
after the 2007 harvest. There will be a cost of approximately $77
million in 2008. By all measures, the new peanut program is a true
success story.
The storage and handling fees paid on peanuts by this loan program
are very limited in scope. And more importantly, the storage and
handling segment of the peanut program will actually expire at the end
of this fiscal year.
As the chairman will recall, the original intent of this program was
to provide an efficient and practical transition from the old supply-
management structure to the new market-oriented approach. Without the
bridge provided by this program, producers would not have participated
in transitioning to the new program.
Every licensed warehouse operator has a structure for storage and
handling fees. These fees will be passed on to the peanut producer if
they are not paid by the Department of Agriculture. Much of the 2006
peanut crop has already been contracted, and the underlying business
decisions associated with these transitions are in large part based on
the program provisions that are in effect under current law.
Peanut producers entered this crop year and planned for this farm
bill period based on the commitment that Congress made in the 2002 farm
bill. Warehouse operators will not absorb these costs. It will be the
producer who will pay if these fees are not paid as designed by the
current bill.
Peanuts, unlike many other crops, can't practically be stored on the
farm. Specialized handling and storage by knowledgeable warehouse
operators is necessary to preserve the value of this semi-perishable
commodity. So it is an expense that is absolutely necessary and one
that the grower can't avoid by doing it himself.
Without this language, what is now a $355 per ton marketing loan
program will effectively be reduced to a loan program that will not be
profitable for the peanut producer.
Mr. Chairman, this language is crucial to the future of the peanut
industry and continuation of the program into 2007. It could literally
mean the difference between profitability and loss, between success and
failure, between farmers surviving or forcing even more family farmers
off the land. These farmers are real people, Mr. Chairman, real people
whose lives will be profoundly changed if this point of order is upheld
by the Chair.
I strongly oppose the point of order and ask the Chairman to retain
the language in question which is vital to the American peanut farmer,
particularly those in the State of Georgia.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Hefley) having assumed the chair, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, Chairman of
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
5384) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.
____________________