[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9215-9258]
[From the U.S. 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.

[[Page 9216]]

  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 9217]]

TH23MY06.001



[[Page 9218]]

TH23MY06.002



[[Page 9219]]

TH23MY06.003



[[Page 9220]]

TH23MY06.004



[[Page 9221]]

TH23MY06.005



[[Page 9222]]

TH23MY06.006



[[Page 9223]]

TH23MY06.007



[[Page 9224]]

TH23MY06.008



[[Page 9225]]

TH23MY06.009



[[Page 9226]]

TH23MY06.010

 

[[Page 9227]]

  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

[[Page 9228]]

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 
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.

[[Page 9229]]

  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 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,

[[Page 9230]]

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.
  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,

[[Page 9231]]

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.
  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

[[Page 9232]]

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.
  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

[[Page 9233]]

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 raze 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?
  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

[[Page 9234]]

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 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.

[[Page 9235]]


  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.
  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

[[Page 9236]]

     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 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.

[[Page 9237]]

  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 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

[[Page 9238]]

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 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)''.


[[Page 9239]]

  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 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

[[Page 9240]]

     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 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

[[Page 9241]]

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.


                             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

[[Page 9242]]

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. 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.
  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

[[Page 9243]]

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.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) to 
strengthen the Resident Instruction Grants Program for the land-grant 
institutions in the U.S. territories. This amendment, which is also 
supported by the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Fortuno) and the 
gentlelady from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen), would increase 
the amount provided under this bill for this important Program by 
$200,000 for a total of $700,000.
  This Program is a competitively-awarded grants program administered 
by the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, 
CSREES, of the United States Department of Agriculture. This Program is 
authorized by Section 7503 of the Farm Security Rural Investment Act of 
2002 (P.L. 107-171), and has been funded for the past two consecutive 
fiscal years.
  Resident Instruction Grants promote and develop teaching and 
education programs within the food and agricultural sciences, and 
related disciplines, at the landgrant institutions in the U.S. 
territories. This Program helps these institutions meet unique 
challenges by strengthening their institutional educational capacities 
in instruction and curriculum, and by enhancing the quality of teaching 
and learning. These unique challenges have been documented by CSREES 
and previously acknowledged by the Committee on Appropriations.
  CSREES has awarded two grants this past year with the initial level 
of funding provided for this program. The land-grant institutions in 
the territories formed a consortium with the University of Guam as the 
lead institution for the first year. These eight institutions are 
working together to increase the quality of their academic programs in 
the food and agricultural sciences. The consortium is using the first 
ever awarded Resident Instruction Grant to enhance courses of study and 
curricula, to explore alternative methods of delivering instruction, 
and to increase enrollment and retention in their degree programs. Each 
of these three objectives is being pursued through the development of 
coordinated and comprehensive five-to-ten year strategic plan. We 
believe that each member institution will be able to implement this 
strategic plan with funding awarded through future Resident Instruction 
Grants.
  We also believe that partnerships between faculties at institutions 
in the territories and on the mainland can be eventually forged as a 
result of continued and increased funding for this program. Such 
partnerships will allow for a more efficient use of existing 
educational funds by the institutions in the territories.
  I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), the Chairman of the 
Subcommittee, and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), for 
recognizing the unique needs of the land-grant institutions in the U.S. 
territories and for their support of the Resident Instruction Grants 
Program. We ask for their support of this amendment and for their 
support for funding this Program at the highest level possible in 
conference with the other body.
  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; 
     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

[[Page 9244]]

     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 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.

[[Page 9245]]

  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

[[Page 9246]]

in the program, the existing program. It does not make sense to return 
to a lower level of BSE testing. I support the amendment.
  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. 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.

[[Page 9247]]



        Limitation on Inspection and Weighing Services Expenses

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

             Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety

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

[[Page 9248]]




           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 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

[[Page 9249]]

     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 (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

[[Page 9250]]

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.
  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

[[Page 9251]]

     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, 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

[[Page 9252]]

     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 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

[[Page 9253]]

     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 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

[[Page 9254]]

     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;
       (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

[[Page 9255]]

     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 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.

[[Page 9256]]

  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 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

[[Page 9257]]

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, 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

[[Page 9258]]

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.

                          ____________________