Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4766) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, we would like to rise in support of the Hyde amendment renaming the Farmer-to-Farmer program so that that program includes the name of our dear colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), and I want to thank the chairman for offering this important amendment to our bill this year.

We rise to accept the amendment and again thank and compliment the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for his cooperation in not only championing this amendment but working to be sure that Mr. Bereuter's contributions are recognized, along with those of John Ogonowski, the pilot of American Airlines flight 11 that tragically crashed into the World Trade Tower on 9/11, for whom the program was named 3 years ago. Mr. Ogonowski had worked so diligently with farmers and others in Massachusetts, and so to have his name and Mr. Bereuter's name associated in perpetuity on this program I think really elevates it to a level that more fully expresses the real goodness of our country. We share the appreciation of the work that the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) has done to support and expand the Farmer-to-Farmer program.

I know that the best way to combat terrorism and misunderstanding is to have programs like Farmer-to-Farmer that link our producers to those of other nations, forming lifelong friendships and understandings. If we look at so many of the societies in which we currently are confronting difficulty, whether it is Pakistan or Afghanistan, other - stan countries that had been part of the former Soviet Union, whether we talk about Africa and the starving people of so many of those nations, this Farmer-to-Farmer program is extraordinarily important. It puts the best face of America forward.

So in taking this time today, again, I want to compliment the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). Let me also thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for his enormous contributions to agriculture while a Member of this House but also the future work he will be doing with the Asia Foundation. The needs of the Pacific and the islands of the Pacific and so many of the issues that he will confront in that new capacity will be enlightened by the accomplishment he demonstrated here.

We are very pleased to support this amendment and thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for his leadership on this, along with so many other issues important to our Nation.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Chairman, we strongly support this amendment, and I yield back our remaining time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment offered by our good chairman.

This essentially is an effort to transfer funds from the Executive Office of the Secretary and the Common Computing Environment to different funds inside of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in operational agencies. I think it is important to point out to the membership, first of all, this is a lot of money, and it is well over $100 million.

This current fiscal year we are spending about $118 million on the Common Computing Environment. Over the years we have increased these accounts, and this year, in fact, within the budget itself there is $2,372,000 in appropriated funds being proposed over last year.

The Chairman's amendment would take those dollars and farm them out to the Farm Service Agency, the NRCS, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and Rural Development as line items I guess in those accounts, although it is a little unclear to me how we would track this.

1130

But the point is, this is an account that has been rising within the executive office of the Secretary herself. I think it is important for us to keep a clear eye on how these funds are being expended.

In addition to that, there are several amendments that Members are offering today that have been cleared and filed in proper time that would take their funds from this particular account. And so the net effect of adoption of this amendment would be to force the Members who wish to offer amendments to find alternative offsets, and also to kind of lose the focus that we currently have on common computing environment in a separate account in the Secretary's office by diverting it to these many places in the agency.

So I assume that the gentleman is doing this for good reasons. But the point is I think we would have a lessening of clarity on where these funds are actually being expended by the

agencies. In past years, we have had trouble with this account in really following how the administrations are spending these dollars. As we thought they were doing a little better job, we gave them additional funds.

But I really do not see the burning need for this amendment right now. There are increases in this account; and, therefore, I think in view of the negative effect it will also have on other amendments being offered here today, I would rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I did want to respond to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), a respected member of our subcommittee, to say that one of our problems in this bill is that, because it is under what we spent last year, many accounts have been scraped. We have been trying to find dollars to do several things in the bill. The Common Computing Environment has a lot of money. This year we are proposing $120 million, an amount over last year. But there are other underfunded programs in the bill extraordinarily important to farmers.

For example, in the important area of bioenergy, the administration wants to cut the development of renewable fuels. We have a new title in the farm bill to create a new market in this country for fuels. One of the amendments that will be offered would take a few dollars out of this common computing account and just let that account be level with this year's expenditures which is $23 million. It's not a lot of money in terms of the full bill. But nonetheless to try to really help our farmers bring up a new industry, it amounts to real dollars. This is money not going to a government agency. It is going directly to farmers to bring up a new source of power in our Nation, new sources of power based in agriculture.

One of the other amendments, and other Members will speak to this, has to do with the civil rights portions of this bill which are underfunded. This account has over $120 million in it.

The third area in which we would hope to take a few dollars out of these accounts are the Farmers Market Promotion Program, a program that was authorized in the new farm bill but has zero dollars now. Farmers out there all around this country are trying to sell their product directly to consumers. We have had so many requests from Members to assist with Farmers' Market Development. We have been unable to meet those requests. For the first time, with this amendment, we would provide funds in a newly authorized program in the farm bill.

So, yes, we have to make choices; and we are trying to help all titles of the farm bill as best we can. These dollars, by being diverted to agencies that already have billions of dollars, well, I really would question our ability to monitor those expenditures. And, yes, farmers are going into these farm service agencies and they are not being served, but we have had these accounts plused up over $100 million for computers for years and years and years.

One of the points I would have, since we have this computing account in the Secretary's office, we can have better oversight so we can see whether or not they are putting these computers in the farm service agencies. But the truth is we do not have enough money in any account to do everything that needs to be done. I respect what the gentleman is saying, but we have to try to do more with less in every single one of the accounts that we are supposed to fund.

I would urge my colleagues to think about this vote because it harms other programs in the bill that are extraordinarily important and are serving our farmers directly. We still maintain hundreds, tens of thousands of dollars, millions of dollars in this account to help with the computing environment. I did want to respond to that.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

I would reclaim my time and say to the gentleman that the overall bill does not have enough money. We have to try to put dollars in all the accounts as best we can. I agree with the gentleman there is not enough money in the overall allocation, but that does not mean we have to rob all accounts just to serve one purpose. We have to use these dollars broadly and do the best we can with an inadequate allocation.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, did we not read past that provision?

Mr. Chairman, we raise objection to that.

Mr. Chairman, could the Chair please explain what is occurring here? We raised objection to the gentleman, who was not on the floor when we read through his section, and we raised objection to that. Why is the gentleman being allowed to proceed?

Mr. Chairman, we raised objection to the gentleman's desire to continue with this. He is raising it out of order.

We object to that, Mr. Chairman. He missed his opportunity.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, because he is proceeding out of order. We have dozens of amendments, as the gentleman well knows.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, he missed his opportunity as the bill was being read.

Mr. Chairman, not at this time.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) knows the rules of the House very well. The gentleman missed his opportunity as the bill was being read.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I do not quite understand the point of order. Our amendment essentially is to bring to a level of $23 million the accounts dealing with biofuels, renewable energy in the bill, which equals this year's level of $23 million. We offset that with funds from the Agriculture buildings and facilities and rental payments account. My amendment does not touch any part of what the gentleman just read.

So, I am from Ohio, and I am offering this amendment. This is not an amendment from Oregon.

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to move America into the future. In the new farm bill, title IX provides for the first time in American history an energy title. In the past fiscal year, we provided $23 million in that account to help move America forward, rooted deeply in the rural countryside. The bill before us today actually cuts that account. This amendment merely restores $8 million to bring it up to equal what we are spending in this current fiscal year of $23 million in the renewable fuels account, title IX of the bill.

Members have to decide, are they for the future, or do they want to continue to live in the past?

The funds that we use to make this account equal to what it is this year come from the Agriculture buildings and facilities and rental payments account. There is an $8 million offset within the bill.

I think it is important for members on every committee, regardless of where we serve in this House, to help move America forward to energy independence. How we convert this country is each of our responsibilities. The United States currently imports two-thirds of the petroleum we consume. By 2025 it is estimated that we will consume 75 percent of imported fuels in this country. We are at the dawn of a new fuels age.

This chart that I am showing you here indicates that the largest share of the fuels we import are from the Middle East. It is no surprise to anybody here where we are at war right now. This is not going to change unless each of us changes. In the most recent farm bill that was passed, we made an effort to do that.

To cut the renewable fuels accounts at the beginning of this 21st century makes absolutely no sense at all. All our amendment does is say we made a good start last year. It was a small start, because only about 1 percent of the fuels we consume in this country are renewable fuels, like ethanol and biodiesel. Our amendment says we have made one small step forward for humankind; let us take another small step with this bill.

According to GAO, the United States has spent over $130 billion over the last three decades in government subsidies to the oil industry. What we are talking about here is a very small amount of money in this bill, $23 million with this amendment, that would help the U.S. Department of Agriculture help America pull forward and to try to resolve our chief strategic vulnerability, which is our absolutely total dependence on imported petroleum.

Recent studies cited by the Renewable Fuels Association found, for example, that increasing ethanol production to just 5 billion gallons annually would create 214,000 jobs, $5.3 billion in new private sector investment in renewable fuel production facilities and increase household income by $51.7 billion, because we would not be draining off the dollars we spend on fuels to go to producers in other countries.

While the energy bill would establish a renewable fuel standard that would lead us to a doubling of ethanol usage, we still need to support the development of infrastructure and ethanol and biodiesel plant construction and distribution systems. We are at the dawn of a new fuels age. It is just a little keyhole as we look toward the future. Yet this is one of the most important steps we can take in trying to help America when she needs us most.

So every single Member here has to ask themselves as they consider our small amendment, just to put $23 million in this account to keep it equal with last year, are we going to live in the past, or are we going to move forward? Are we going to ask agricultural America to pull forward with the Nation? Or are we going to continue to live with our heads and our pockets literally in the sands of the Middle East and every other undemocratic place in the world?

American farmers want to move forward. Is this Congress going to help them, or are we going to continue to live in the troubled past?

I ask for support on this amendment. Essentially again what it does, it takes $8 million from the buildings accounts, moves it into title IX, to keep it at $23 million, which is what we are spending in this current fiscal year.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) so very much for his excellent, excellent summary of what this program has done. I want to thank him also for mentioning all of the organizations that support our efforts here.

I want people to have this one photo in their mind. If we look at total Trichart showing petroleum consumption in the United States, the growing share of imports that are a part of that is apparent. This is just a staggering set of statistics to keep in mind as we witness our nation become more and more and more dependent on imported petroleum. Here, this chart presents the one picture to keep in our minds.

The other one is this: we are at the dawn of the new fuels age. Less than 1 percent, less than 1 percent of what we currently produce in this country do we make ourselves from agriculturally based fuels. The potential literally is unlimited. This bill takes us another small step to open this window to begin to fuel ourselves and put those dollars in our pockets.

So I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I ask the membership for their support on this Kaptur-Herseth amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we did not hear the gentleman's request.

Mr. Chairman, is that just on this amendment?

Just amendments to this amendment?

We would agree to that.

Mr. Chairman, would it be acceptable if we were to move to 15 minutes equally divided?

Mr. Chairman, we just want to get clarification. We have several speakers on this side, and if we were to be allotted 15 minutes on this side, not divided with the other side, that would allow for all of our people to speak.

I wish to be heard on the point of order.

I wonder if the majority could share the CBO scoring with us. We do not have a report back, or at least it has not been referred to us in general.

Do I take it there is no CBO scoring that the majority is able to provide us with?

Mr. Chairman, I did not get an answer to my question. Mr. Chairman, I asked the majority whether they have the information on the CBO scoring. The minority does not have that report. If this is going to be a factor in the judgment of the Chair, we would appreciate the information.

Yes, Mr. Chairman. I was trying to get a clarification from the Chair. If the majority has objections based on CBO numbers, where are those numbers? They have not been provided to the minority. So we do not understand the nature of the objection.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, this rule will allow for the consideration of H.R. 4766, the fiscal year 2005 agriculture appropriations bill. This important bill provides funding for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, select programs at the Department of Health and Human Services, and other agriculture and nutrition-related programs at various Federal agencies.

Like the other fiscal year 2005 appropriations bills, this bill is grossly underfunded. The allocation for these important programs continues to be reduced each year. Even though this bill is 1 percent more than the amount requested by President Bush, it is still below last year's funding level; and, unfortunately, it is the farmers, children, pregnant mothers, and seniors who rely on these programs who are hurt by these low allocations.

The gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla), the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), and the members of the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies have made the best out of a bad situation. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) did the best he could by stretching the limited funds he was allocated to fund many of the programs that are important to the American people.

While I am disappointed that the allocation is low, and I will urges the conferees, once appointed, to do what they can to increase the funding for these important programs, I want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla); the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur); and the members of this subcommittee for doing the best they could with this bill.

Specifically, I want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), and the entire committee for providing $75 million for the George McGovern-Robert Dole Food For Education and Child Nutrition Program. This important and successful program provides nutritious meals to hungry children around the world in a school setting. The McGovern-Dole Program received only $50 million last year, and I am very pleased that President Bush requested an increase for fiscal year 2005.

This program began as the Global Food For Education Initiative, a pilot program to use surplus American commodities to feed hungry children around the world. The pilot program received $300 million and provided school breakfasts, school lunches, and other supplemental food to 7 million children in 38 countries.

The McGovern-Dole program, authorized in the farm bill, made this program permanent and subject to appropriations. While I support providing $300 million for this program, which would restore funding for this program to the original level of the pilot program, I am pleased that this bill increases funding for the McGovern-Dole program over last year's level.

Mr. Speaker, I am not alone in supporting $300 million for this program. In December, 102 members of this body sent a bipartisan letter to President Bush requesting that $300 million be allocated for the McGovern-Dole program in fiscal year 2005.

Mr. Speaker, that letter is as follows:

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, December 11, 2003.

Hon. George W. Bush,

President of the United States,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. President: We are writing to urge you to provide

$300 million in your Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Proposal for the

George McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for Education

and Child Nutrition Program. We believe it is urgent to

restore funding for this program at levels similar to those

of the original pilot program.

We strongly believe this funding is critical for sustaining

and expanding the McGovern-Dole Program in order to combat

terrorism and to help build and consolidate democracy in the

Middle East, southern Asia, the Near East, and in other

regions critical to U.S. national security. As you are aware,

the McGovern-Dole Program provides donations of U.S.

agricultural products, as well as financial and technical

assistance, for school feeding and maternal and child

nutrition programs in low-income countries. We note that

recommendations made by the General Accounting Office (GAO)

in February 2002 on how to strengthen and improve the

administration and implementation of school feeding programs

were fully integrated into the law establishing the McGovern-

Dole Program, enhancements that we believe contribute to its

success.

Both the initial pilot program and the current McGovern-

Dole Program have a proven track record at reducing the

incidence of hunger among school-age children and improving

literacy and primary education, especially among girls, in

areas devastated by war, hunger, poverty, HIV/AIDS, and the

mistreatment or marginalization of women and girls. School

meals, teacher training, and related support have helped

boost school enrollment and academic performance. McGovern-

Dole nutrition and school feeding programs also improve the

health and learning capacity of children both before they

enter school and during the years of primary and elementary

school.

In February 2003, the U.S. Department of Agriculture

evaluated the McGovern-Dole pilot program and found

significant positive results. Specifically--``The results to

date show measurable improvements in school enrollment,

including increased access by girls. In projects involving

more than 4,000 participating schools, the WFP reports an

overall enrollment increase exceeding 10 percent, with an

11.7 percent increase in enrollment by girls. The PVO's

report an overall enrollment increase of 5.75 percent in GFE-

participating schools. In some projects, increases in

enrollment were as high as 32 percent compared with

enrollment rates over the previous three years.'' (USDA, the

Global Food for Education Pilot Program: A Review of Project

Implementation and Impact, page 2 February 2003)

We firmly believe that these programs reduce the risk of

terrorism by helping to eliminate the hopelessness and

despair that breed terrorism. American products and

commodities are directly associated with hunger alleviation

and educational opportunities, encouraging support and good

will for the United States in these communities and

countries.

We strongly urge that you restore the capacity of this

critically important program by providing $300 million for

Fiscal Year 2005.

Sincerely,

James P. McGovern, Frank Wolf, Jo Ann Emerson, Marcy

Kaptur, Doug Bereuter, Tom Lantos, Earl Pomeroy, Amo

Houghton, Barbara Lee, Sam Graves, Edolphus Towns, Don

Manzullo, Vic Snyder, Jim Leach, Tammy Baldwin,

Christopher Smith (NJ), Marty Meehan, Doc Hastings

(WA), Dennis Moore, George Nethercutt, John Olver,

Jerry Moran (KS), Bennie G. Thompson (MS), Todd Tiahrt,

Adam Schiff, David Price, Maurice Hinchey, James

Oberstar, Betty McCollum, William Delahunt, Bob Filner.

Jan Schakowsky, Sheila Jackson Lee, Leonard Boswell, Gary

Ackerman, George Miller, Dale Kildee, Julia Carson

(IN), Albert Wynn, Carolyn Maloney, Bobby Rush, Diana

Christensen, Raul M. Grijalva, Bob Etheridge, Pete

Stark, Jim McDermott, Jim Matheson, Jerry Costello,

Mike Capuano, Joseph Crowley, Susan Davis (CA), Rosa

DeLauro, Martin Frost, Rick Larsen (WA), Sander Levin,

Ed Markey, John Tierney, Lynn Woolsey, Donald Payne,

Hilda Solis, Mike McNulty, Elijah Cummings, Mike Doyle,

Joseph Hoeffel.

Lucille Roybal-Allard, Bernie Sanders, Sam Farr, Neil

Abercrombie, Jim Marshall, Charles Gonzalez, Ruben

Hinojosa, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Earl Blumenauer,

Robert Wexler, Rob Andrews, Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Jose

Serrano, Maxine Waters, Lane Evans, Barney Frank, Ron

Kind, Sanford Bishop, Jr., Sherrod Brown (OH), Henry

Waxman, Steve Rothman, Nancy Pelosi, Dennis Kucinich,

Tom Allen, Jim Moran (VA), Rick Boucher, Brad Sherman,

Carolyn Kilpatrick, Lois Capps, Karen McCarthy, Patrick

Kennedy (RI), Jane Harman, Alcee Hastings (FL), William

Jefferson, Chris Van Hollen, Chaka Fattah, Stephen

Lynch, Charles Rangel.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and others to work with the other body to further increase these funds as this bill moves into and through the conference committee.

This program is important, I believe, not only to helping feed hungry children around the world. I also believe it is important in combating terrorism because it gets to some of the root causes where terrorist groups go to recruit people to be involved in some of the terrible events that we have seen unfold over the last several years.

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased that the fiscal year 2005 agriculture appropriations bill includes language blocking the FDA from spending money to enforce its ban on prescription drug reimportation.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that a bipartisan majority of our colleagues supports the reimportation of prescription drugs. It is even clearer that the American people support reimportation. They are being gouged by the high cost of prescription drugs, and they deserve access to these lower-cost prescription drugs. The current Medicare drug card and prescription drug plan are hardly a panacea for the high cost of prescription drugs.

It is vital that we provide access, especially for our seniors, to these low-cost prescription drugs. Until we can repeal this misguided law and pass a genuine and real prescription drug benefit that will provide genuine and real relief for seniors who rely on these import medicines, reimportation in many

respects is our only option; but it is also our best option.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is underfunded. There is no doubt about that. It is underfunded because of misguided tax cuts for rich people and wasteful spending adopted by this administration and I would say by those who are running this House of Representatives. It is underfunded because in 3 short years they turned record surpluses into record deficits. Now the programs that require Federal funds and especially the people who rely on these programs are paying the price for these misguided policies.

The low allocation for this bill means that WIC, our most important nutrition and health program for pregnant mothers and newborn children, will not be fully funded. It means homeland security activities at USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service are underfunded. And it means rural water and waste programs and the rural single family housing direct loan program are funded below even last year's levels.

The policies enacted over the past few years, the tax cuts for rich people and the wasteful spending, are taking their toll on these programs. However, Mr. Speaker, having noted these concerns and reservations, I believe that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), have done the best they could with such an inadequate allocation. I commend them for this bill. I look forward to voting for it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member on the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me just close by again saying I want to commend the work of the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ranking Member Kaptur) for doing the best they could with the low allocation. It is not their fault they had a low allocation. The fault lies with the President and the White House and the leadership of this Congress.

I think that during this debate I think we will hear a number of Members question their sense of priorities when, in fact, the need, especially in this area of agriculture, is so great, and yet we do not have the resources to be able to address all those challenges.

They have done a good job with not a lot of resources. They deserve to be commended.

We have no problem with this rule, and I would urge adoption of the rule, and I also will vote for this bill and hope that in conference that Members will be able to get the allocation up to a more reasonable level.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I wish to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), for a very good working relationship this year and the type of hearings that help us all build a better Nation.

This fiscal 2005 agriculture appropriation bill has been put together under some of the most trying budget circumstances that we have ever seen. And even though this is an appropriation bill, and I guess people refer to it as one of those green-eyeshade bills, it is important for the American people to know that what this bill is really all about is that no child in our country should go hungry; that American agriculture begins to regain some global market edge internationally; and that we keep winning more markets rather than losing markets, and taking actions that can help that.

This bill affects every American consumer in whether or not the meat that we eat is safe. It involves new research into the new plants, many of them undergirding new medicines of the future. Really, the best agriculture and food and drug research in the world. This bill touches every single person in our country and so many people around the world.

So I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Bonilla) for all his efforts, as well as the majority staff, under the direction of our new majority clerk, Martin Delgado, who is joined by Maureen Holohan, Leslie Barrack, Joanne Perdue, and our detailees Tom O'Brien and Mike Gregoire. I also want to thank our minority clerk, who is with us here tonight, Martha Foley, for her efforts not only on behalf of our membership but of our entire country, for her very, very hard and largely unrecognized work.

Last year, I described this bill as a size 7 shoe for a size 10 foot. Well, it is a new year now. We have 293 million Americans in our country, more than last year. But, unfortunately, the bill this year has an even smaller shoe size but a bigger foot. Our needs are increasing as a country, but our resources are increasing. So we now have a size 6 shoe for a size 11 foot. And if you think the bunions are starting to pinch now, new stories regarding the early steps in preparing for next year's bill suggests matters will only be getting worse. Much more difficult.

The bill before us today provides a total of slightly more than $83 billion, that is no small change, with nearly $66 billion, or 80 percent, four-fifths of the bill, that we are mandated to spend. That means that programs, such as our Food Stamp program, we must spend those dollars to meet growing needs in the country. And in this year's bill that totals about $33 billion.

If you think the economy is improving, you will not find evidence of that claim in this bill. In fact, this bill contains $16.772 billion in what we call discretionary spending. That is the part of the bill where we can really try to direct resources to very important needs in the country, but this year we have a $67 million reduction over the prior year. And, in fact, it is a 6 percent reduction compared to 2 years ago for the fiscal 2003 budget. In fact, it is $1.100 billion below that.

So this bill is not going up by any measure. And with more mandatory spending necessary to meet unmet economic needs, that cuts into the discretionary spending that we have so many draws upon all over this country.

The people who live in agricultural America and our small towns have the same needs and concerns as their friends in big cities. They need jobs, and more often than not are experiencing plant shutdowns. There are huge job washouts in many small towns in this country. And, in fact, there are no new employers that are readily seen on the horizon. We have offshoring of so much of our work and higher unemployment in many, many corners of rural America. People there need health care, but often have fewer hospitals, or much longer distances to travel to secure care. And the accounts in this bill dealing with telemedicine for rural America are severely underfunded.

People in rural America want economic development, but they find the services available to them are so oversubscribed or heavily weighted towards loan, that they often cannot get the assistance they need. People in rural America want community services, but they find that their smaller population base and smaller economic base make it even harder to finance the water and sewer systems, clean water systems, the power utility systems, and the telecommunication systems that so many other Americans, frankly, take for granted.

So the fiscal 2005 agriculture appropriation bill is a classic exercise in the futility of a budget process that has effectively obligated the bulk of Federal funds before we have really had a fair opportunity to address all the needs of our Nation here at home. Decisions made in recent years by some in this Congress on taxes and on foreign policy are sapping our ability to meet real domestic obligations.

To date, our country has spent over $100 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that number grows every day. Imagine if we could take that money and divide it, $2 billion for each of our 50 States to share with their local towns and cities, what an incredible difference that would make.

But that is not the choice that we will make tonight.

I know that while the gentleman from Texas worked to provide funding within our restrictive allocation, there are a number of shortcomings that we need to recognize. Because of these budget limitations, the bill before us will cut the community facilities program by $36 million, so all the Members that asked us for more help for their particular communities, we could not do that.

In the rural water and sewer grant program, we are $86 million underfunded. That is just to meet where we were last year, because the needs are so much greater.

It looks as though we are going to be at least $150 million short in the women, infants and children's food program, WIC, and nearly $15 million short in the commodity supplemental food program under this bill, despite appreciated increases. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for his efforts there.

At the same time, we are also in this bill forced to debate tomorrow cutting renewable energy programs. We are also not funding needed market development tools. And we have a Department of Agriculture that may be preparing to extend additional credits to Iraq, but meanwhile forgiving $4 billion in accumulated principal and interest owed by the Rafidain Bank of Iraq. We want to make sure that whatever is done relative to Iraq upholds existing law and does not permit the type of fraud that occurred during the 1980s and 1990s and the misuse of the Commodity Credit Corporation programs in arming Saddam Hussein and strengthening his power. That was done during the Reagan-Bush administrations and the Bush-Quayle administrations, over the strong objections of this Congress.

They say that we cannot expand the senior farmers market program to all States so that needy seniors can purchase locally grown fruit and vegetables from farmers who earn from the market, not transfer payments. Yet we know that over half the States in the Union still do not even have beginning funds to bring that important program on-line to really help farmers who are diversified close to our cities.

In international trade, there continues a downward trend as the U.S. moves for the first time in its history toward becoming a net food importer. Meanwhile, the Department of Agriculture cannot give us effective solutions for controlling and assessing liability for invasive species that are a huge and rising cost to the American taxpayer due to misapplied free trade policies, mismanaged, misapplied, misguided.

In this bill, there are hundreds of millions of dollars of tax money that has to be diverted to take care of the Asian longhorn beetle in New York, Chicago and many other places and the emerald ash borer in places like Michigan and Ohio. Those bills should not come to rest at the foot of the American taxpayer. They should be paid for by the commercial interests that bring those critters into this country, and they should not be getting off Scott free for the damage that they are causing. Nonetheless, we have to fund those

remediation programs in this bill. Those costs have been rising exponentially during this decade of the 1990s and into this new millennium.

Officials that are charged with ensuring the safety of our food supply cannot answer basic questions about how many cattle have been tested to ensure public health and safety or tell us when procedures for dealing with this national need will at long last be satisfied. It is amazing that the Department of Agriculture cannot do that. What a shame.

Meanwhile, export markets remain closed even to producers who are willing to pay themselves for the testing so that our export customers can reopen their markets. America's family farmers and ranchers have always had a vision for America's future. They daily demonstrate a willingness to work harder and smarter than their competitors. They possess a keen appreciation for the fact that their accomplishments provide a safe and bountiful food supply which allows most Americans to expend their energies in other industries and business endeavors. We need to support the efforts of these productive Americans by providing them with the tools for continued success, fair prices, fair trade policies, fair access to new technologies, and fair and consistent standards imposed on imported products that do not place economic burdens on domestic producers.

Mr. Chairman, in closing my more formal remarks this evening, let me just say that it has been a great pleasure to work on both sides of the aisle to complete the bill that we will bring to the floor tomorrow for amendment. We look forward to working with our colleagues on completing it tomorrow.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), a very respected and extraordinarily hard-working member of our subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth), a new Congresswoman, who will provide to this Congress a much-needed, strong voice for agriculture and rural area.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As we close this evening, I just want to say that the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth) and I intend to offer a biofuels amendment tomorrow to the bill with great hope that we can help push America into a new energy age, a new renewable energy age, starting right in rural America; and I wanted to acknowledge that while she is still on the floor with us tonight.

I did also want to, for the record, thank deeply Roger Szemraj of our own staff for the tremendous work that he does and for the time he takes away from his own family to be with us even tonight on this floor as we move this important bill for fiscal year 2005 agriculture appropriations.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the chairman's amendment and in support of the Common Computing Environment and the associated systems.

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) cited many of the benefits of the Common Computing Environment not only to the Department of Agriculture but to the many farmers and ranchers that the Department of Agriculture seeks to serve.

I want to bring to the attention of the House another very important function of the Common Computing Environment efforts, and that is a new technology or at least a new application of a technology which has been with us for about 30 or 40 years, and that is satellite imaging in support of forest and farmland use.

There is a very important effort under way to categorize farmland and to image farmland all across the United States. It serves many important purposes. One of them is to help us figure out the categories of different farmland and the erosion of that farmland, and it helps farmers in the end by protecting their most basic asset, the land. It also helps our forests because it helps us assess forest health. It helps us assess the buildup of unwanted or unnecessary fuel stocks in our forests to avert forest fires, and it also helps assess infestations by insects and other pests so that we can better assess the health of our forest stock.

So I just want to point out that, as these amendments come up, ranging from the chairman's amendment, which makes a fairly substantial cut, to other amendments which make smaller cuts in the Common Computing Environment budget, I, for one, will have to choose very carefully between those amendments which serve very crucial public purposes such as eliminating decades' old discrimination by various Federal agencies and programs and other, perhaps less compelling, causes to cut into the Common Computing Environment budget.

And, again, I do want to point out that in addition to the many important purposes that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) pointed out that we in Oregon, we who have a very thorough land use planning system, we depend on data in order to maintain our categories of farm and forest land, of urban reserve, of urban land and potential urban land, and there is nothing quite as important as having some of the satellite imagery which would also be unfortunately adversely affected by the chairman's amendment. So I do rise in reluctant opposition to the chairman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I am yielding to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize the strong leadership of the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), and the new and strong leadership of our newest member, the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth), in bringing this important amendment before the U.S. House of Representatives.

This amendment would not only assist us in achieving energy independence sooner than we otherwise would, but let us look at some of the specifics in this amendment which I think are very, very important, not just to the United States of America as a whole, but also to our particular region of the country, the Pacific Northwest, which is particularly reliant on renewable sources of energy such as hydropower, wind power, and other renewable energy sources which have less impact on the environment than does our current reliance on oil and coal.

Last year, in the past, this is what this effort has achieved: it assisted 35 wind power projects. It supported $7 million to support 30 anaerobic digesters; $1 million to support six solar projects; almost $4 million to support 16 ethanol plants and anaerobic digester plants; and also supported direct combustion and fuel pellet systems. These are important projects locally, nationally, and affect the geopolitics of the world.

The section 9006 program leverages a tremendous amount of private sector investment, since the program provides a maximum of 25 percent funding. This 3-to-1 leverage ratio is a good buy for the American taxpayer. This fosters rural economic development and generates clean and efficient energy.

The amendment is supported by the Alternative Fuels Renewable Energies Council, the American Bioenergy Association, the American Corn Growers Association, the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, the American Wind Energy Association, the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, the Energy Law and Policy Center, the Geothermal Energy Association, the National Association of State Energy Officials, the National Farmers Union, the Renewable Energy Action Project, the Solar Energy Industries Association, and the Soybean Producers of America, all strong supporters of this important amendment. The Spokane County, and that, Mr. Chairman, is in my corner of the country, the Spokane County Conservation District, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Western Organization of Resource Councils, all of these organizations support this amendment offered by the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member, because it makes sense. It leads to clean energy; it leads to energy independence. This is what the best of agricultural policy should do for America and the world.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member, if she has any further comments.

Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, are we agreeing to time limitations on all subsequent amendments? Are we agreeing to a 10-minute limit on this amendment only?

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, is there any intention of the chairman or of anyone that the chairman knows of to offer a secondary amendment?

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

There is an emerging threat to the nursery stock and Christmas tree industries, and I want to recognize my colleague, the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), and I am pleased of the work with the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) in offering this amendment.

Phytophthora ramorum is the causal agent of sudden oak death. This pathogen causes disease on a wide, wide range of plant species, including many crops important to the nursery industry such as rhododendron and camellia and potentially affects Oregon's Christmas tree industry also.

Together, nursery crops and Christmas trees are crucial not only to jobs in Oregon but they also constitute over $1 billion in Oregon exports. Oregon, by the way, is the Nation's largest grower of Christmas trees.

Sudden oak death has already resulted in one county-wide quarantine

on nursery products in a county which I represent, Columbia County, Oregon. This disease is threatening Oregon's nursery industry and its Christmas tree growers.

To respond to this threat, Oregon has begun an aggressive joint State and Federal inspection program that will gather and test plants from almost 1,400 nurseries and Christmas tree growers. Each nursery will submit a minimum of 40 plant tissue samples for laboratory analysis.

The ability of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, known as APHIS, to process these samples in a timely manner is absolutely essential to the Oregon agricultural economy, and I want to ensure that APHIS has the necessary resources to do so.

This bill contains $1.98 million for emerging plant pests. Some of that money will be applied to sudden oak death eradication. I am pleased that this bill does provide some funding for sudden oak death eradication. However, I do not believe that $1.98 million will provide APHIS with enough resources to deal with the serious threat facing the State of Oregon and the Nation as a whole.

In 2004 alone, USDA had to allocate over $17 million in emergency and contingency funds for sudden oak death eradication. We are facing the same threat in fiscal year 2005, and we should not, should not as a matter of sound policy, rely solely on emergency funds to meet our needs.

Mr. Chairman, the Hooley-Wu amendment transfers $5 million to APHIS from the Agriculture buildings and facilities account for the purpose of sudden oak death eradication. These additional funds will ensure that important collaborative efforts between the States and APHIS continue in a timely manner and in an effective way.

I would like to thank my colleagues, the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies, staff members and all affiliated staff for their assistance with this issue.

I believe that, by working together, we can minimize the economic impact of sudden oak death in Oregon and around the United States.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I am very proud to present the agriculture appropriation bill to the full House tonight. It is a bill that we are proud of. It is a product of a bipartisan effort that we have had on our subcommittee and our full committee. The subcommittee that produces this bill has a history of working in a bipartisan way and always trying to include the input of every member of the subcommittee on an annual basis.

This is a subcommittee that had to entertain over 2,100 individual requests for items to be included in this bill, and we did the best we could. This year, we had an unusual constraint, and that is a tighter budget, a more fiscally responsible budget that has forced us to appropriately present a bill that is $67 million less than it was last year. And I might point out that the bill we did last year was below the previous year as well.

So fiscal conservatives should be proud of this product as well, and those who support agriculture issues in this country should be proud. Agriculture research, Food and Drug Administration, there are so many parts to this bill that affect so many people in this country. This bill, of course, also funds the Food Stamp program, the Women, Infants and Children program, we fund Food Safety, and the list goes on and on.

We have a very good subcommittee, and I mention them on a regular basis, but I would like to take the opportunity tonight to mention some of the people behind the scenes that do the grunt work day in and day out, oftentimes when Members of Congress are back in their congressional districts meeting with constituents and spending time with family. They are the ones back here going through every line item and looking for every opportunity to make this bill a good bill, which is what we are presenting here this evening.

Martha Foley, of the minority staff, is someone we work with in good faith, and she does a great job for us every day; Maureen Holohan, Leslie Barrack, and Joanne Perdue of the majority staff. We also had two detailees helping us this year, Tom O'Brien and Mike Gregoire. And then, of course, I would like to single out the clerk, Martin Delgado, who is clerking for the first time for this subcommittee and doing an outstanding job.

Mr. Chairman, the Subcommittee began work on this bill with the submission of the President's Budget on February 2nd. We had ten public hearings beginning on February 25th, and we completed our hearings on March 25th. The transcripts of these hearings, the Administration's official statements, the detailed budget requests, several thousand questions for the record, and the statements of Members and the public are contained in eight hearing volumes that are all printed.

The Subcommittee and Full Committee marked up the bill on June 14th and June 23rd, respectively. I can confirm to you that the interest in this bill is completely bipartisan. However, I would point out that my own support for a member's needs independent on that member's support of the Committee in general, and of this bill in particular.

Mr. Chairman, you may hear a lot of talk today about funding items that are not in this bill, or accounts that may be a little short, but I can assure you and the members of this body that given the allocation we had, that this is a fair, and fiscally-responsible bill.

This bill has increases over fiscal year 2004 in some cases, or over the budget request in

others, for programs that have always enjoyed strong bipartisan support. Those increases include:

Agricultural Research Service, $69 million above the request;

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, $92 million above last year, but $20 million below the request;

Food Safety and Inspection Service, $45 million above last year;

Farm Service Agency, $25 million above last year;

Natural Resources Conservation Service, $34 million below last year, but $84 million above the request;

Rural Community Advancement Program, $86 million below last year, but $125 million above the request;

For the Women, Infants, and Children program the bill is $295 million above last year, and $120 million above the request;

Food and Drug Administration, $84 million over last year, and $32 million below the request.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, we refer to this bill as the agriculture bill, but it goes farther than assisting basic agriculture. It also supports rural and economic development, human nutrition, agricultural exports, land conservation, as well as food, drug, and medical safety. This bill will deliver benefits to every one of your constituents every day, no matter what kind of district you represent.

I would say to all Members that they can support this bill and tell all of their constituents that they voted to improve their lives while maintaining fiscal responsibility.

The bill is a bipartisan product with a lot of hard work and input from both sides of the aisle. I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who serve as the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. I would also like to thank all my subcommittee colleagues: the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh); the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston); the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt); the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham); the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson); the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode); the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood); the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro); the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey); the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr); and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).

I also want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, for all her good work on this bill this year and the years in the past.

Mr. Chairman, I am submitting for the Record at this point tabular material relating to the bill.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JY04.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JY04.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JY04.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JY04.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JY04.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JY04.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JY04.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JY04.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JY04.009

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Earlier, Mr. Chairman, I recognized the fine work that the subcommittee staff has done. I would now like to single out a young man in my office, Walt Smith, a fine young man from Hillsboro, Texas, that is known to all agriculture interests and groups around the country, who worked side by side with the subcommittee staff to put this bill together. We wanted to acknowledge the good work that he does as well.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), the distinguished vice chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman from Iowa has been a champion of the renewable energy program, and I think all of his constituents back home clearly understand that. I agree with the gentleman from Iowa, and I have appreciated his input on this subject as we have been putting this bill together. As we have discussed, this year has been a difficult one in terms of funding decisions we have had to make.

If the gentleman will yield further, the gentleman has my assurances that I will work with him and do everything I can to increase the renewable energy program funding level in conference. Again, I congratulate the gentleman for his stout work on this issue day in and day out.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett).

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

The gentleman is correct. The naming of this program did cause confusion, but it is clear that this is a continuation of the program that the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Subcommittee has funded for the past 3 years. The Tri-State Initiative conducts important commodity research in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia; and I would be happy to work with the gentleman to restore funding for this program in conference.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.