[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15125-15139]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 710 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4766.
  The Chair designates the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) as 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Terry) assume the chair temporarily.

                              {time}  2006


                     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. 4766) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, 
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, with Mr. Terry 
(Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is 
considered as having been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla).
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very proud to present the agriculture 
appropriation bill to the full House tonight. It is a bill that we are 
proud of. It is a product of a bipartisan effort that we have had on 
our subcommittee and our full committee. The subcommittee that produces 
this bill has a history of working in a bipartisan way and always 
trying to include the input of every member of the subcommittee on an 
annual basis.
  This is a subcommittee that had to entertain over 2,100 individual 
requests for items to be included in this bill, and we did the best we 
could. This year, we had an unusual constraint, and that is a tighter 
budget, a more fiscally responsible budget that has forced us to 
appropriately present a bill that is $67 million less than it was last 
year. And I might point out that the bill we did last year was below 
the previous year as well.
  So fiscal conservatives should be proud of this product as well, and 
those who support agriculture issues in this country should be proud. 
Agriculture research, Food and Drug Administration, there are so many 
parts to this bill that affect so many people in this country. This 
bill, of course, also funds the Food Stamp program, the Women, Infants 
and Children program, we fund Food Safety, and the list goes on and on.
  We have a very good subcommittee, and I mention them on a regular 
basis, but I would like to take the opportunity tonight to mention some 
of the people behind the scenes that do the grunt work day in and day 
out, oftentimes when Members of Congress are back in their 
congressional districts meeting with constituents and spending time 
with family. They are the ones back here going through every line item 
and looking for every opportunity to make this bill a good bill, which 
is what we are presenting here this evening.
  Martha Foley, of the minority staff, is someone we work with in good 
faith, and she does a great job for us every day; Maureen Holohan, 
Leslie Barrack, and Joanne Perdue of the majority staff. We also had 
two detailees helping us this year, Tom O'Brien and Mike Gregoire. And 
then, of course, I would like to single out the clerk, Martin Delgado, 
who is clerking for the first time for this subcommittee and doing an 
outstanding job.
  Mr. Chairman, the Subcommittee began work on this bill with the 
submission of the President's Budget on February 2nd. We had ten public 
hearings beginning on February 25th, and we completed our hearings on 
March 25th. The transcripts of these hearings, the Administration's 
official statements, the detailed budget requests, several thousand 
questions for the record, and the statements of Members and the public 
are contained in eight hearing volumes that are all printed.
  The Subcommittee and Full Committee marked up the bill on June 14th 
and June 23rd, respectively. I can confirm to you that the interest in 
this bill is completely bipartisan. However, I would point out that my 
own support for a member's needs independent on that member's support 
of the Committee in general, and of this bill in particular.
  Mr. Chairman, you may hear a lot of talk today about funding items 
that are not in this bill, or accounts that may be a little short, but 
I can assure you and the members of this body that given the allocation 
we had, that this is a fair, and fiscally-responsible bill.
  This bill has increases over fiscal year 2004 in some cases, or over 
the budget request in others, for programs that have always enjoyed 
strong bipartisan support. Those increases include:
  Agricultural Research Service, $69 million above the request;
  Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, $92 million above last 
year, but $20 million below the request;
  Food Safety and Inspection Service, $45 million above last year;
  Farm Service Agency, $25 million above last year;
  Natural Resources Conservation Service, $34 million below last year, 
but $84 million above the request;
  Rural Community Advancement Program, $86 million below last year, but 
$125 million above the request;
  For the Women, Infants, and Children program the bill is $295 million 
above last year, and $120 million above the request;
  Food and Drug Administration, $84 million over last year, and $32 
million below the request.
  Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, we refer to this bill as 
the agriculture bill, but it goes farther than assisting basic 
agriculture. It also supports rural and economic development, human 
nutrition, agricultural exports, land conservation, as well as food, 
drug,

[[Page 15126]]

and medical safety. This bill will deliver benefits to every one of 
your constituents every day, no matter what kind of district you 
represent.
  I would say to all Members that they can support this bill and tell 
all of their constituents that they voted to improve their lives while 
maintaining fiscal responsibility.
  The bill is a bipartisan product with a lot of hard work and input 
from both sides of the aisle. I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Florida (Chairman Young), and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), 
who serve as the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the 
Committee on Appropriations. I would also like to thank all my 
subcommittee colleagues: the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh); the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston); the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Nethercutt); the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham); the gentlewoman 
from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson); the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode); 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood); the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro); the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey); 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr); and the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Boyd).
  I also want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the 
distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, for all her good work 
on this bill this year and the years in the past.
  Mr. Chairman, I am submitting for the Record at this point tabular 
material relating to the bill.

[[Page 15127]]





[[Page 15128]]



[[Page 15129]]



[[Page 15130]]



[[Page 15131]]



[[Page 15132]]



[[Page 15133]]



[[Page 15134]]



[[Page 15135]]



[[Page 15136]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. 
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I wish to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), for a very good working relationship this 
year and the type of hearings that help us all build a better Nation.
  This fiscal 2005 agriculture appropriation bill has been put together 
under some of the most trying budget circumstances that we have ever 
seen. And even though this is an appropriation bill, and I guess people 
refer to it as one of those green-eyeshade bills, it is important for 
the American people to know that what this bill is really all about is 
that no child in our country should go hungry; that American 
agriculture begins to regain some global market edge internationally; 
and that we keep winning more markets rather than losing markets, and 
taking actions that can help that.
  This bill affects every American consumer in whether or not the meat 
that we eat is safe. It involves new research into the new plants, many 
of them undergirding new medicines of the future. Really, the best 
agriculture and food and drug research in the world. This bill touches 
every single person in our country and so many people around the world.
  So I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) for 
all his efforts, as well as the majority staff, under the direction of 
our new majority clerk, Martin Delgado, who is joined by Maureen 
Holohan, Leslie Barrack, Joanne Perdue, and our detailees Tom O'Brien 
and Mike Gregoire. I also want to thank our minority clerk, who is with 
us here tonight, Martha Foley, for her efforts not only on behalf of 
our membership but of our entire country, for her very, very hard and 
largely unrecognized work.
  Last year, I described this bill as a size 7 shoe for a size 10 foot. 
Well, it is a new year now. We have 293 million Americans in our 
country, more than last year. But, unfortunately, the bill this year 
has an even smaller shoe size but a bigger foot. Our needs are 
increasing as a country, but our resources are increasing. So we now 
have a size 6 shoe for a size 11 foot. And if you think the bunions are 
starting to pinch now, new stories regarding the early steps in 
preparing for next year's bill suggests matters will only be getting 
worse. Much more difficult.
  The bill before us today provides a total of slightly more than $83 
billion, that is no small change, with nearly $66 billion, or 80 
percent, four-fifths of the bill, that we are mandated to spend. That 
means that programs, such as our Food Stamp program, we must spend 
those dollars to meet growing needs in the country. And in this year's 
bill that totals about $33 billion.
  If you think the economy is improving, you will not find evidence of 
that claim in this bill. In fact, this bill contains $16.772 billion in 
what we call discretionary spending. That is the part of the bill where 
we can really try to direct resources to very important needs in the 
country, but this year we have a $67 million reduction over the prior 
year. And, in fact, it is a 6 percent reduction compared to 2 years ago 
for the fiscal 2003 budget. In fact, it is $1.100 billion below that.
  So this bill is not going up by any measure. And with more mandatory 
spending necessary to meet unmet economic needs, that cuts into the 
discretionary spending that we have so many draws upon all over this 
country.
  The people who live in agricultural America and our small towns have 
the same needs and concerns as their friends in big cities. They need 
jobs, and more often than not are experiencing plant shutdowns. There 
are huge job washouts in many small towns in this country. And, in 
fact, there are no new employers that are readily seen on the horizon. 
We have offshoring of so much of our work and higher unemployment in 
many, many corners of rural America. People there need health care, but 
often have fewer hospitals, or much longer distances to travel to 
secure care. And the accounts in this bill dealing with telemedicine 
for rural America are severely underfunded.
  People in rural America want economic development, but they find the 
services available to them are so oversubscribed or heavily weighted 
towards loan, that they often cannot get the assistance they need. 
People in rural America want community services, but they find that 
their smaller population base and smaller economic base make it even 
harder to finance the water and sewer systems, clean water systems, the 
power utility systems, and the telecommunication systems that so many 
other Americans, frankly, take for granted.
  So the fiscal 2005 agriculture appropriation bill is a classic 
exercise in the futility of a budget process that has effectively 
obligated the bulk of Federal funds before we have really had a fair 
opportunity to address all the needs of our Nation here at home. 
Decisions made in recent years by some in this Congress on taxes and on 
foreign policy are sapping our ability to meet real domestic 
obligations.
  To date, our country has spent over $100 billion in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, and that number grows every day. Imagine if we could take 
that money and divide it, $2 billion for each of our 50 States to share 
with their local towns and cities, what an incredible difference that 
would make.

                              {time}  2015

  But that is not the choice that we will make tonight.
  I know that while the gentleman from Texas worked to provide funding 
within our restrictive allocation, there are a number of shortcomings 
that we need to recognize. Because of these budget limitations, the 
bill before us will cut the community facilities program by $36 
million, so all the Members that asked us for more help for their 
particular communities, we could not do that.
  In the rural water and sewer grant program, we are $86 million 
underfunded. That is just to meet where we were last year, because the 
needs are so much greater.
  It looks as though we are going to be at least $150 million short in 
the women, infants and children's food program, WIC, and nearly $15 
million short in the commodity supplemental food program under this 
bill, despite appreciated increases. I want to thank the gentleman from 
Texas for his efforts there.
  At the same time, we are also in this bill forced to debate tomorrow 
cutting renewable energy programs. We are also not funding needed 
market development tools. And we have a Department of Agriculture that 
may be preparing to extend additional credits to Iraq, but meanwhile 
forgiving $4 billion in accumulated principal and interest owed by the 
Rafidain Bank of Iraq. We want to make sure that whatever is done 
relative to Iraq upholds existing law and does not permit the type of 
fraud that occurred during the 1980s and 1990s and the misuse of the 
Commodity Credit Corporation programs in arming Saddam Hussein and 
strengthening his power. That was done during the Reagan-Bush 
administrations and the Bush-Quayle administrations, over the strong 
objections of this Congress.
  They say that we cannot expand the senior farmers market program to 
all States so that needy seniors can purchase locally grown fruit and 
vegetables from farmers who earn from the market, not transfer 
payments. Yet we know that over half the States in the Union still do 
not even have beginning funds to bring that important program on-line 
to really help farmers who are diversified close to our cities.
  In international trade, there continues a downward trend as the U.S. 
moves for the first time in its history toward becoming a net food 
importer. Meanwhile, the Department of Agriculture cannot give us 
effective solutions for controlling and assessing liability for 
invasive species that are a huge and rising cost to the American 
taxpayer due to misapplied free trade policies, mismanaged, misapplied, 
misguided.
  In this bill, there are hundreds of millions of dollars of tax money 
that has to be diverted to take care of the Asian longhorn beetle in 
New York, Chicago and many other places and the emerald ash borer in 
places like Michigan and Ohio. Those bills should not

[[Page 15137]]

come to rest at the foot of the American taxpayer. They should be paid 
for by the commercial interests that bring those critters into this 
country, and they should not be getting off Scott free for the damage 
that they are causing. Nonetheless, we have to fund those remediation 
programs in this bill. Those costs have been rising exponentially 
during this decade of the 1990s and into this new millennium.
  Officials that are charged with ensuring the safety of our food 
supply cannot answer basic questions about how many cattle have been 
tested to ensure public health and safety or tell us when procedures 
for dealing with this national need will at long last be satisfied. It 
is amazing that the Department of Agriculture cannot do that. What a 
shame.
  Meanwhile, export markets remain closed even to producers who are 
willing to pay themselves for the testing so that our export customers 
can reopen their markets. America's family farmers and ranchers have 
always had a vision for America's future. They daily demonstrate a 
willingness to work harder and smarter than their competitors. They 
possess a keen appreciation for the fact that their accomplishments 
provide a safe and bountiful food supply which allows most Americans to 
expend their energies in other industries and business endeavors. We 
need to support the efforts of these productive Americans by providing 
them with the tools for continued success, fair prices, fair trade 
policies, fair access to new technologies, and fair and consistent 
standards imposed on imported products that do not place economic 
burdens on domestic producers.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing my more formal remarks this evening, let me 
just say that it has been a great pleasure to work on both sides of the 
aisle to complete the bill that we will bring to the floor tomorrow for 
amendment. We look forward to working with our colleagues on completing 
it tomorrow.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Earlier, Mr. Chairman, I recognized the fine work that the 
subcommittee staff has done. I would now like to single out a young man 
in my office, Walt Smith, a fine young man from Hillsboro, Texas, that 
is known to all agriculture interests and groups around the country, 
who worked side by side with the subcommittee staff to put this bill 
together. We wanted to acknowledge the good work that he does as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Latham), the distinguished vice chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the distinguished 
chairman of the subcommittee in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Texas knows, I have been and 
remain concerned about the funding level for the renewable energy 
program. The bill before us today funds this program at $15 million; 
and even though this funding level is a $4.2 million increase above the 
budget request, it is $8 million below the fiscal year 2004 funding 
level.
  As we have discussed, this program is important to Iowa and the whole 
country, particularly in the wind and biomass areas, because it makes 
grants available to rural, small businesses, agricultural producers and 
others who purchase renewable energy systems or make energy 
improvements. This program has the potential to improve rural living 
standards and economic opportunities and to create jobs. In short, 
there is a significant value-added component for rural areas that comes 
with this program.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LATHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BONILLA. The gentleman from Iowa has been a champion of the 
renewable energy program, and I think all of his constituents back home 
clearly understand that. I agree with the gentleman from Iowa, and I 
have appreciated his input on this subject as we have been putting this 
bill together. As we have discussed, this year has been a difficult one 
in terms of funding decisions we have had to make.
  Mr. LATHAM. I know that the chairman has worked very hard to fashion 
a balanced bill and that he has done everything possible to accommodate 
the concerns of all Members. I had intended to offer an amendment to 
increase the renewable energy funding level by $8 million. However, 
with the chairman's assurances that we will work in conference to raise 
the funding level of this program, I will not offer that amendment.
  Mr. BONILLA. If the gentleman will yield further, the gentleman has 
my assurances that I will work with him and do everything I can to 
increase the renewable energy program funding level in conference. 
Again, I congratulate the gentleman for his stout work on this issue 
day in and day out.
  Mr. LATHAM. I thank the gentleman very much. I look forward to 
working with him on this.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to encourage Members to support this bill as it 
is a well-balanced measure. The chairman has done an outstanding job of 
trying to ensure that sufficient resources are available for the broad 
range of programs that are funded under this bill.
  Like many of the Members, I have my thoughts as to some programs that 
I wish could be a bit more generously funded, but given the need to 
produce a balanced product under the agricultural allocation, I am 
pleased with this bill.
  I want to comment on a few other areas of interest that I believe are 
important beyond the renewable energy program that the chairman and I 
just discussed. For example, we must continue to focus on agricultural 
research which I think is an area that holds great promise for the 
future of agriculture economies and the consuming public that those 
economies feed.
  I also think that we should remain diligent about the development of 
an animal identification program that is reliable and easy to work with 
for all parties needing to access it. In this regard, it is important 
that we have adequate resources for animal health monitoring and 
surveillance, and this bill contains such resources.
  Also, I want to mention my support for land conservation which this 
bill funds. In this regard, I know many Members have constituencies 
with interests in the conservation security program. The program is of 
considerable interest in Iowa, not only among those in the agriculture 
production arena but also those who are generally concerned about the 
environment in general. I share that concern and want to see the 
conservation security program as a concept developed in an optimal way. 
On the other hand, it would be unwise to begin full-scale 
implementation of the CSP and spend billions of dollars before that 
program is fine-tuned.
  In numerous conversations that I and my staff have had about the CSP 
in Iowa and elsewhere, the prevailing view is that the CSP program 
needs work. Both corn and soybean association representatives as well 
as others with whom I have talked support CSP, but at this point they 
believe that the program is not ready to go forward at full speed.
  I also want to personally thank the chairman and the staff that did 
such a tremendous job on this bill.
  One extraordinarily important item in the bill is the full funding 
for the National Animal Disease Center at Ames, Iowa. It is a large 
number in the bill. It is one that the staff and the chairman have 
really worked hard to secure those funds for us. I certainly thank the 
President for including funding for the Animal Disease Center in his 
budget request. This is an extraordinarily important facility similar 
to the CDC for livestock and animals and very, very important for the 
security of our Nation, when we talk about anthrax, when we talk about 
mad cow disease, all of those things. It is very, very important that 
we have this facility on-line and that it is completed on a timely, 
expedited basis.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), a very respected and 
extraordinarily hard-working member of our subcommittee.

[[Page 15138]]


  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time and for being a member of this great committee.
  I want to compliment the chairman on the good work done in bringing 
this bill to the floor, but I also want to point out I think something 
that all of us on the committee, the committee that spends the money on 
agriculture in America and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, what we 
realize is a problem, and that is that we have in this great country of 
ours, we still have nutritional problems and people going to bed at 
night hungry.
  One of the big difficulties in the way the budget process is set up 
in this country is that 80 to 85 percent of the money we spend goes to 
mandatory food programs. That leaves only about 16 percent or so that 
is discretionary. Why we need to have more input into how the Federal 
Government spends its money on food and nutrition is because half of 
the budget of the USDA is dedicated towards nutrition. So it is not a 
small program. It is more than half of the entire budget of the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture. That is important. That is good. That is a 
good priority. But we still have areas where the demand is increasing.
  Frankly, food and nutrition is so essential to life and we talk on 
the committee about problems we are having with obesity, what we ought 
to be doing with our nutritional programs, particularly in schools as 
we feed kids. The United States government has some specialized 
programs in the school lunch program and the school breakfast program, 
and we assist schools. Those are for kids who come from a low-income 
family, but essentially the school lunch program that all the kids eat 
is a public policy because it is run by the schools, and in that 
program alone you will notice that when I look through what America 
buys to feed kids, it is not exactly the same as what we have invested 
money in doing research on, in telling people what is healthy for 
Americans. That is, our nutritional voice does not meet our spending 
practices.
  I am a big advocate for trying to get more fresh fruits and 
vegetables in schools. Schools have used the school lunch program and 
school breakfast program to provide for vending machines in schools, 
for finding other ways to raise money and have not really paid 
attention to the fact that the health of the children and the students 
is really dependent on how well they are fed and how good that health 
is. The committee has addressed a lot of these issues, but we are also 
faced with the same problems that other committees are and that is our 
discretionary funding is limited.

                              {time}  2030

  And what we have seen with that is the food stamps, as the economy 
goes up and down, and as the Members know, it has been sort of in a 
recession in the last few years, that means more people have been 
unemployed. Yes, we see people getting back on the employment rolls, 
and that is a good thing; but we still have had since 2001 a 45 percent 
increase in demand for the food stamp program.
  We have taken a lot of steps in that area to try to streamline it and 
better manage the program through automatic debit cards, to swipe cards 
rather than having to go through the line and go through this ticket 
process of whether the stamps one is using are eligible to buy the 
product that they picked off the shelf, and the debit card allows it to 
show that right away on the computer and does not sort of put the 
recipient and the cashier in an awkward situation.
  The WIC program, the Women, Infants and Children, we have a program 
in America to feed women who are expecting in prenatal conditions and 
in postnatal conditions, giving them nutritious food to feed the 
infant. It is a very successful program. It is one that America can be 
very proud of. But we see that may need an increase, meaning that 
people just do not have the resources to buy that kind of food, or it 
is not readily available in their neighborhood.
  I have spoken of a school lunch and school breakfast program. We have 
a Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program called TEFAP. The money 
that has been flatlined for a number of years, we may need in the 
future to increase that.
  We have the Commodity Supplemental Food Program. That is mainly the 
things we have seen, Meals on Wheels and other entities taken to senior 
citizens where the commodity foods are put into a local senior citizen 
nutritional program. The money has been frozen in that despite the fact 
that we have an aging population in America; and as that aging 
population increases, and it is going to increase tremendously because 
I was just told the demographics of California, the census data shows 
that by the year 2015, one out of every five persons over the age of 65 
will live in the State of California, that is going to be a huge burden 
on the State. It could also be a great asset because these people have 
come with a lot of experiences; but on the other hand, as we know, the 
aging population is staying alive longer, and we are going to need more 
services, and those are usually expensive services. So these types of 
programs may be hurt in the future if they are flatlined.
  So the point of my raising this is that I am really excited to be a 
member of this committee. I think it is a tremendous committee that 
works in a very strong, bipartisan fashion. The chairman has been 
excellent. The staff has been excellent. The other members of the 
committee, we all get along very well and try to work out our 
differences. And what I am trying to point out in my comment today is 
that despite the good workings inside Congress and despite the fact 
that we are the wealthiest country on the Earth and the most 
agriculturally abundant and productive, I mean just in abundancy alone, 
one of the three counties I represent produces 85 crops.
  When I talked to Members here in Congress and to the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture, I found that there was no other State in the United 
States that produced 85 crops alone. California, being the largest ag 
State, has the greatest variety in it, and what I would like to see our 
country do is move more into buying the fruits and vegetables and the 
things that we describe in our nutrition. Frankly, the things we see in 
all these fad diets that are going on right now, those are all about 
healthy foods and healthy fruits and vegetables, and if we use the 
government resources to purchase those more and get those into the 
school lunch program, into the WIC program, into the feeding programs, 
into the senior meals programs, and, frankly, into our institutional 
feeding. We feed the military. We feed hospitals. We feed big 
institutions like the Federal Prison System. If we could get our sister 
States and counties and cities to be able to work on their 
institutional feeding, we could do a much better job of getting the 
kind of food that is necessary to the people who need it, and we could 
have a better distribution of how agriculture functions in America.
  So I want to compliment the committee on the direction it is headed. 
I think we have a few problems on the horizon. I think if we put our 
minds to it, we can address those.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth), a new Congresswoman, who 
will provide to this Congress a much-needed, strong voice for 
agriculture and rural area.
  Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio 
for yielding me this time.
  I rise this evening in support of this legislation. It provides 
essential funding for programs important to farmers, ranchers, and 
consumers across South Dakota. I am pleased that it contains increases 
in funding for the Food Safety and Inspection Service by $45 million 
and for the Food and Drug Administration by $72 million. I commend the 
gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) and the gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Ms. Kaptur), ranking member, as well as other members of the 
subcommittee and their staff for working together to forge the 
difficult compromises that are evident in this bill.

[[Page 15139]]

  I do, however, want to voice a couple of concerns I have about 
funding levels for some of the programs addressed in this 
appropriations measure. I have heard from several of my constituents, 
concerns about funding levels for two very important programs in South 
Dakota. One of the programs I hear about consistently from the 
agricultural producers in my State is the Environmental Quality 
Incentives Program or EQIP. EQIP offers financial and technical 
assistance for eligible farmers and ranchers to enable them to 
implement environmentally beneficial land management practices.
  I am pleased that EQIP was reauthorized in the 2002 farm bill and 
given increasing authorization levels over the next several years. 
Unfortunately, I feel this appropriations bill significantly underfunds 
this important program. It falls $190 million below what the 2002 farm 
bill had authorized. I understand and appreciate the need for fiscal 
restraint, but I disagree with some of the priorities reflected in this 
bill, particularly the funding level for the EQIP program.
  The ramifications of this funding level are made quite clear when we 
consider the backlog of projects that exist under this important 
program. By some estimates, the backlog for EQIP funding nationwide is 
in excess of $1 billion, with the backlog in South Dakota alone in the 
tens of millions of dollars. These are commendable projects that do a 
great deal to improve water quality and wildlife habitat across the 
country.
  I appreciate the stringent budgetary constraints under which we are 
currently operating, but this is not the program that should be the 
target of such substantial cuts.
  Another important program is the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program, 
or WHIP. WHIP is a voluntary program for people who want to develop and 
improve wildlife habitat on private land. USDA provides both technical 
assistance and up to 75 percent cost-share assistance to establish and 
improve fish and wildlife habitat.
  WHIP has proven to be a highly-effective and widely-accepted program 
across the country. By targeting wildlife habitat projects, WHIP 
provides assistance to conservation-minded landowners who are unable to 
meet the specific eligibility requirements of other USDA conservation 
programs.
  Unfortunately, this bill would fund WHIP at $25 million below its 
authorized levels for fiscal year 2005. While $25 million may not seem 
like a large sum of money relative to other amounts considered by this 
body, keep in mind that this bill funds the entire program at $60 
million. The difference between $85 million and $60 million is almost 
30 percent. This is a significant shortfall, and one I think should be 
reevaluated in conference.
  Again, I voice my overall support for this legislation and will vote 
in favor of final passage, but I am concerned with some of the funding 
choices that were made. I urge my colleagues that will serve as 
conferees to seek additional funding for both the EQIP and WHIP 
programs.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett).
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Bonilla), chairman of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration and Related Agencies Subcommittee.
  For the past 3 years, the committee and Congress have supported 
funding for the Tri-States Joint Peanut Research project between Auburn 
University, the University of Florida, and the University of Georgia. 
In the past this project has focused on a sod-based rotation with 
peanuts, cotton, and other row crops.
  This year the project was renamed the Tri-States Initiative to 
incorporate fruits, nut crops, and vegetables in the rotation. This 
created some confusion and was unfortunately viewed as a new start and 
subsequently received no funding. As the gentleman is aware, producers 
in southern States face the problem of compacted soils, which can be 
greatly improved with the use of proper crop rotation. This research 
would allow southeastern producers to make informed decisions on how to 
diversify their operations while increasing farm profitability and 
improving soil characteristics.
  The Tri-States Initiative is a reasonable extension of a previously 
funded project. Since the project was viewed as a new start, I ask the 
chairman to be supportive of restoring the fiscal year 2004 funding for 
the project in conference.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EVERETT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  The gentleman is correct. The naming of this program did cause 
confusion, but it is clear that this is a continuation of the program 
that the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration 
and Related Agencies Subcommittee has funded for the past 3 years. The 
Tri-State Initiative conducts important commodity research in Alabama, 
Florida, and Georgia; and I would be happy to work with the gentleman 
to restore funding for this program in conference.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman 
for his response, and I appreciate his willingness to work with me in 
conference to restore this important program.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As we close this evening, I just want to say that the gentlewoman 
from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth) and I intend to offer a biofuels 
amendment tomorrow to the bill with great hope that we can help push 
America into a new energy age, a new renewable energy age, starting 
right in rural America; and I wanted to acknowledge that while she is 
still on the floor with us tonight.
  I did also want to, for the record, thank deeply Roger Szemraj of our 
own staff for the tremendous work that he does and for the time he 
takes away from his own family to be with us even tonight on this floor 
as we move this important bill for fiscal year 2005 agriculture 
appropriations.
  Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Terry). All time for general debate has 
expired.
  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. 
Hensarling) having assumed the chair, Mr. Terry, Chairman pro tempore 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
4766) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________