Providing for 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.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring before the House today the fiscal year 2007 appropriations bill for Agriculture, Rural Development, the Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies. Before I do so, I would like to say how proud I am to be serving in my final year as chairman of the subcommittee. It has been a great privilege and a great experience.

I want to compliment my ranking member, Ms. DeLauro, for helping us get to this point today to produce a good bill for the American people. My goal every year has been to produce a bipartisan bill.

We began our hearings on the budget on February 15, and we added an additional hearing at the request of Ms. DeLauro on bird flu, which is a very important issue to people not just in this country, but around the world; and I have tried very hard to accommodate every Member who had a request for this bill. But it has been difficult. We received this year over 1,600 individual requests for specific spending from most Members of the House.

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

I would also like to thank all of my subcommittee members on both sides of the aisle for helping to produce this bill, and I would like to thank people who oftentimes don't get recognized for all of the hard work, sometimes on Saturday nights and Sunday mornings, that goes into putting a bill together. It is not just the Members that are elected to serve on this subcommittee and full committee, but we have the committee staff: Martha Foley of the minority staff; Martin Delgado, the great, distinguished leader, the clerk of the subcommittee; Maureen Holohan, Leslie Barrack and Jamie Swafford of the majority staff. In addition, I would like to thank our detailee, Mike Arnold, and Walt Smith from Texas A&M back in Texas at College Station from my personal staff for working hard on this.

I also want to mention some people that I would say have never had their names mentioned before on the floor of the House, but without them we could not be here today. They are the ones that helped put this whole product together: Larry Boarman, Theo Powell, Cathy Edwards, Linda Muir and the staff of the Government Printing Office.

Mr. Chairman, we refer to this bill as the agriculture bill, but it goes so much more than assisting basic agriculture. It also supports rural and economic development, human nutrition, ag exports and land conservation, as well as the food, drug, and medical safety in this country. This bill will cover benefits to of every one of your constituents everyday, no matter what district you represent.

There are some key increases over the fiscal year 2006 spending level in the bill that include the following: $80 million for bird flu; $24 million for food safety; $11 million for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, the budget request proposed to zero out this program; $34 million for the Farm Service Agency, salaries and expenses; $12 million for farm operating loans; $91 million for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; and $20 million for the FDA user-fee programs for prescription drugs, medical devices, and animal drugs.

Mr. Chairman, I will include at this point in the Record tabular material relating to the bill.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23MY06.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23MY06.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23MY06.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23MY06.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23MY06.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23MY06.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23MY06.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23MY06.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23MY06.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23MY06.010

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. Lewis), the distinguished chairman of the full committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlemen from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

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.

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. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

At this time I do not.

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

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.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

I cannot advocate or endorse a particular group's choice for the position. That is not my role.

I would be happy to work with the gentleman on this; but, of course, I cannot stand here and guarantee the outcome.

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. 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.

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. 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.

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.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

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.

Absolutely.

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. 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. 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.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.

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.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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. 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. 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. 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.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

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.

I withdraw my reservation of the point of order.

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.

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. 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.

I would be happy to yield to my good friend from Alabama.

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

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. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Chairman, can you tell us, please, how much time remains on the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).

Can I ask the gentleman from Texas if he has any additional speakers.

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. 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.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

(During the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to address energy and rural development needs. We have become all too aware in recent years of the growing divide between rural Americans and other parts of our nation. Rural America has 90 percent of the country's poorest counties, a poverty rate of over 14 percent, and the number of farms in the United States has declined by two-thirds over the past 7 decades. Crop prices are low. Subsidies are eroding deepening digital divide. The opportunities for opportunity in rural America are slim.

In offering the amendment, I believe we could begin to meet a variety of rural development needs. From waste and water grants and community facility grants to funding for broadband expansion and renewable energy infrastructure, the amendment would raise the total water and waste grant program in the bill to $689 million, an increase of 44 percent over the bill, higher than any of the years since at least fiscal year 1996. These are the kinds of community facilities which help communities, that provide direct loans to them to build libraries, medical facilities, daycare centers. The funds help small rural communities meet EPA Clean Water Act requirements, lower water costs for homeowners and businesses, helping lower-income smaller communities get funds they need.

USDA has left grant applications with $497 million from 536 communities unfunded at the end of fiscal year 2005 because it had used up the funds appropriated for the program. This happens year after year. We have got to start doing better. I believe this amendment helps us to do that.

Let me focus on energy for a moment. The single most significant action this committee could take to improve the prospects for rural and national economies would be to make a strong commitment to renewable energy. There are several programs in the 2002 farm bill, last year's energy bill, funded through the agricultural appropriations bill that offer us this opening to look at meaningful incentives for renewal energy, production, consumption and infrastructure.

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. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment because I, too, am very, very concerned that the USDA is deciding or may decide to lower the number of BSE tests that are performed annually. I spent some time in this area.

Since the enhanced testing program began, the Inspector General of the USDA has raised series concerns about the current enhanced surveillance program. We have raised concerns with the USDA agencies in hearings and in private conversations.

Let me just give you just a little bit of information. For example, 2004, the IG reported serious problems with the testing program, including sampling was not random, and APHIS had not exercised the authority it had to collect the samples. Geographic representation in the testing was not assured. Cattle with central nervous system symptoms were not always tested. Because of interagency confusion, a process for getting samples of animals that die on the farm, those who are at the highest risk, was not in place.

More recently, the IG found that senior APHIS officials blocked the recommendations of scientists at the National Veterinary Services Laboratory in Ames, Iowa, for additional BSE testing on a sample that had tested positive initially several times.

Faced with the conflicting results, the scientists recommended additional testing to resolve the discrepancy. APHIS headquarter officials concluded no further testing was necessary, because testing protocols were followed. In the end, it was the IG who decided the additional testing should take place. It was done by AIS and the British lab at Weybridge who both found that the sample tested positively for BSE.

The IG also made shocking findings about the quality assurance and the BSE testing program at the NVSL, the National Veterinary Service Laboratory, such as the lack of adequate controls and procedures to ensure the quality or capability of the BSE testing program, the failure to implement an adequate quality assurance program for its own laboratory testing procedures, or to obtain internationally recognized accreditation for its BSE testing program.

Those are our concerns. That is what I was trying to lay out here, and flaws in the program, the existing program. It does not make sense to return to a lower level of BSE testing. I support the amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Chairman, I regret that my friend has moved to strike this language, particularly given the GAO's recent findings.

The FDA needs the authority to mandate post-marketing drug studies when needed, and indeed, the General Accountability Office has issued a very harsh report of the post-market studies saying, and I quote, FDA lacks clear and effective processes for making decisions about and providing management oversight of post-market safety issues. They further say that, to improve the decision-making process for post- market drug safety, Congress should consider expanding FDA's authority to require drug sponsors to conduct post-market studies, such as clinical trials or observational studies, as needed, to collect additional data on drug safety issues.

The FDA is under increasing pressure to approve new drugs quickly. Some of us have been concerned by the implication of the approval process. Since 2000, ten drugs have been withdrawn for safety reasons by their manufacturers, all voluntarily. As far back as 1996, when the inspector general at HHS looked into the matter, it found that the FDA lacked an appropriate system for monitoring or tracking the status of the post-market----

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.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Washington, my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman Bonilla and Ranking Member DeLauro for working together on this important bill. They have taken the President's inadequate budget proposal and made it better.

Chairman Bonilla and his staff deserve to be congratulated for doing the right thing with this bill. And Ranking Member DeLauro and the Democratic members of the Appropriations Committee, including Ranking Member Obey, deserve credit for improving the chairman's mark.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to highlight some of the very important antihunger programs in this bill that make a real difference in the lives of millions of people here in the United States and around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to be a cochair of the Congressional Hunger Center and of the Hunger Caucus. I have seen how important our anti-hunger programs are to low-income Americans. I have met families who, through no fault of their own, have to rely on Federal anti-hunger programs to put food on their table.

In my own district, I am working with State and local officials to make sure every eligible person in need signs up and receives these important benefits so that central Massachusetts and southeastern Massachusetts is made up of hunger-free communities.

On the Federal level, we must continue to fight for critical anti- hunger programs. In his budget, the President eliminated the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which provides food to low-income mothers and children under 6 years of age, as well as America's elderly poor. Literally hundreds of thousands of people would have been left to fend for themselves if this program had been shut down, as the President had requested.

Thankfully, Chairman Bonilla and Ranking Member DeLauro not only restored the funding eliminated by President Bush, they also provided an increase of $11 million over last year's level. I believe my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are thankful that this bill includes a $40 million increase for the WIC Program over last year's allocation, or $44 million more than the President's request.

WIC is one of the most successful domestic maternal and infant health and nutrition programs in the history of the United States. I am troubled, however, that funding in this bill for the child nutrition programs is below the President's request and that funding for the food stamp program is almost $3 million less than last year, at a time when more and more and more people are falling below the poverty line.

Mr. Speaker, even though I believe the funding levels for anti-hunger programs should be increased even more than what this bill was able to provide, I am more concerned that the administration and Congress continue to lack a cohesive anti-hunger, antipoverty strategy.

Mr. Speaker, I know the Agriculture Appropriations Act is not the most appropriate bill to establish such a policy, but it is the vehicle that ultimately funds many of the important and most fundamental programs that help lift people out of poverty. I believe we can end hunger and poverty, if only we have the political will to do so.

I challenge my colleagues in this chamber to do more. And it will not necessarily cost a great deal more, but it will take far better coordination of public and private efforts. It will take a concerted effort by the Federal Government, and it will take the heart and compassion of a great Nation to eradicate poverty and hunger in the United States once and for all.

I believe in the heart of the American people. I think we saw that heart after Katrina. I think we see that heart every time there is a crisis abroad and children are in need.

Mr. Speaker, over the next year, I hope we all rise to the occasion and commit to this worthy and necessary goal. Overall, Mr. Speaker, I believe this bill should be commended for restoring funding for many of our most important domestic hunger and nutrition programs.

Regrettably, due once again to the extreme limits on the Agriculture Appropriations Bill, the same cannot be said of international hunger and good aid programs. The committee was able to maintain last year's funding levels, but so much more is needed.

The George McGovern-Bob Dole International Food for Education Program is basically frozen at last year's levels. This was done despite a bipartisan letter from over 100 Members of Congress asking that funding for the McGovern program be restored to its fiscal year 2001 level of $300 million.

This bill provides only one-third of that amount. McGovern-Dole has proven itself time and time again to be one of our most effective tools in reducing hunger in school-aged children, and increasing attendance and academic performance, especially among girls in some of the poorest places in the world.

I know that the committee supports this program. I just hope that the chairman and the ranking member will find a way in conference negotiations to increase the funding for this program so that it can reach more children in the neediest communities in the developing world.

Mr. Speaker, I also regret that P.L. 480, title II, food for peace, emergency food aid and development programs, have also basically been level-funded, although I do appreciate that the committee did find a few additional dollars for this program. In fiscal year 2006, Congress has ostensibly provided $1.218 billion for title II, and this bill provides $1.226 billion for title II.

Unfortunately, what is hidden by these figures is that, for the past 3 years, the Congress has ended up appropriating about $1.5 billion each year so that title II can meet global food emergencies. This year is no exception. In the fiscal year 2006 emergency supplemental, which is currently awaiting House-Senate conference negotiations, there is about $350 million in title II emergency food aid; $225 million of that emergency food aid is for the humanitarian crisis in Darfur.

If the President had put those funds in last year's regular budget request, and Congress had approved and appropriated those funds in the regular agriculture appropriations bill, then that food would be on its way to the people of Darfur today.

Instead, the World Food Programme has been forced to cut food rations in half for 2.6 million Darfur refugees and displaced people.

Why should we care about this? Well, Mr. Speaker, as a Congress, we should care because this is deceptive budgeting, and poor planning hinders our ability to respond to emergencies as they arise. But more importantly, much more importantly, we should care because people are dying from lack of food because we do not have the funding in hand that we knew ahead of time we would need for fiscal year 2006 and that we should plan now to have in hand for fiscal year 2007.

We know emergencies happen. We know we have been appropriating about $300 million or more each year for the past 3 years in supplemental appropriations bills to meet those needs. Let us do the right thing and build such funds into our planning process.

Put those funds in the regular budget and include and approve them in the regular agriculture appropriations bill. Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker. No country in the world has been as responsive

to international food emergencies as the United States.

No other country even comes close to our generosity. The United States has been and continues to be the leader in providing food and humanitarian aid for Darfur. It is past time that the rest of the world step up to the plate.

The funds sitting in the fiscal year 2006 supplemental will not reach the President's desk until June. And therefore the food aid itself will not reach the people of Darfur until November. If USAID had those moneys now up front, the ration cuts in Darfur would not be happening, period. I appeal to the President. I appeal to the appropriators and to the leadership of this House, do not repeat this mistake in 2007. We need to plan ahead.

Somehow, before this bill comes back to us as a conference report, we need to find a way to substantially increase Title II funding so that we are not robbing food aid from one hungry family to feed another simply because we failed to provide the necessary funding to plan for and to meet global food emergencies.

Mr. Speaker, I know the committee cannot do this on its own, which is why I make a plea for all of us to work this problem out, so that we are not faced with such desperate choices next year.

Mr. Speaker, Chairman Bonilla, Ranking Member DeLauro, and their colleagues on the committee should be commended for their hard work on this bill. They have done the best they could despite the difficult choices that face them in this process. They deserve our respect and gratitude.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take just a moment to thank Chairman Bonilla and Ranking Member DeLauro and members of the committee for providing funding for the Congressional Hunger Center. The Hunger Center is co-chaired by my colleague Congressman Jo Ann Emerson

and myself, and it trains young people to be the future leaders of the anti-hunger movement. The Congressional Hunger Center, I think, is known to most Members of this Chamber. It has an incredible staff, an excellent staff, and does a very good job in raising awareness and getting young people involved and getting them to feel passionate about combating hunger, not only here in the United States but around the world. I think every Member of this Chamber should be proud of this center's work. So I am pleased that the committee continues to fund this center.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

I am sure there will be a number of amendments offered during the day. I just want to call my colleagues' attention to one amendment that may be offered by Representative Johnson of Illinois that I strongly oppose, and I would urge all my colleagues to oppose it as well.

This is an amendment that is supposedly an attempt to tackle the obesity problem in this country, but what it is, is an amendment that would restrict the choice of people who are on food stamps. It would basically dictate to people on food stamps that they could not buy certain things, and this is problematic, I think, for a number of reasons.

First, I think the emphasis should be on promoting healthier foods in our nutrition and not on constant punitive measures against poor people. If we want to deal with the obesity problem in this country, which is a serious problem, we should do so thoughtfully, and we should do so with considerable deliberation to make sure that what we are doing is actually solving and tackling the problem. I do not think this will do that.

Secondly, this bill I do not think is the appropriate bill for us to make these kinds of big changes. There are other bills that are more appropriate coming down the line, and I hope that my colleagues will respect that. But, again, rather than limiting choices for poor people, we should focus our attention and put the emphasis on healthier foods, like fruits and vegetables, without limiting people's choices. We should focus on nutrition education, and we should focus on raising people out of poverty instead of constantly blaming them and trying to pursue punitive measures, which I think is not only the wrong way to deal with the problem but I also think shows kind of a lack of respect for people who are struggling in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member on this committee.

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

I will be calling for a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule so that we can consider the DeLauro amendment that was rejected in Rules Committee last night on a straight party-line vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote.

Mr. Speaker, the DeLauro amendment will increase funding for alternative energy research, something that is desperately needed in our Nation these days. The cost of the amendment is fully offset by rolling back a mere 1.21 percent, the tax cut for Americans making more than $1 million annually.

Mr. Speaker, the energy crisis continues to get worse and worse in our country every day. All you need to do is fill up your gas tank or open your heating bill to know that the cost of fuel is skyrocketing, with no signs of letting up anytime soon, if ever.

We can continue to ignore this crisis until the costs are prohibited or our supplies run dry, or we can do the responsible thing and invest in research and development of alternative energy sources, something that we should have been doing a long time ago.

Our energy needs are growing every day in this Nation and in the rest of the world as well. We have to find other ways to meet those needs. We need a substitute for oil and other fossil fuels. There are many promising alternative energy sources out there that we need to explore immediately to ensure that they are available in the near future. The DeLauro amendment will help support these efforts.

Mr. Speaker, in the Rules Committee last night, we were told, as we are told often, that there is a germaneness issue and that thereby they would not make this amendment in order, but the fact of the matter is that those of us on this side of the aisle are trying to actually solve America's problems. We are trying to propose alternatives and pay for them as we go. We are not just proposing ideas and not identifying where the money would come from. We are actually laying out a plan to make this country energy independent, to try to deal with the rising costs of gas and of oil, and this is the only way we can do this. We are constantly denied the opportunity to debate and to vote on a comprehensive plan or to deal with this issue. This is the moment.

I want to point out to my colleagues that a ``no'' vote will not prevent us from considering the agricultural appropriations bill under an open rule, but a ``no'' vote will allow Members to vote on the DeLauro amendment. A ``no'' vote will allow us to be able to support an initiative and a plan to deal with this energy crisis, to actually map out a strategy to support renewable energy sources.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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.

Reclaiming my time, the comments of the gentleman from Wisconsin make it very clear that Congress has a role here in affirming the position of consumer representatives on the National Organic Standards Board. It was Congress that created this board. It was Congress that wanted to ensure the integrity of the organic label. So I am asking my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to protect the integrity of the organic food label.

I would once again say that the Consumers Union has taken this position that they believe that the integrity of the consumer public interest positions have been compromised by the appointment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Would the gentleman endorse the statement of concern that I made so that the appointment would truly go to a consumer representative?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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.

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. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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?

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.

I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

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. 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. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.