Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about the use of ultrasound imaging by emergency physicians. October 2006 marks the 10-year anniversary of the establishment of the American College of Emergency Physicians', ACEP, Section of Emergency Ultrasound, which actively encourages research and training of emergency physicians in the use of emergency ultrasound. October 15, 2006, celebrates Emergency Ultrasound Day.

Emergency ultrasound, defined as the use of ultrasound imaging at the patient's bedside, is a critical component of quality emergency medical care. Ultrasound imaging enhances the physician's ability to evaluate, diagnose, and treat patients in the emergency department. It provides immediate information and can answer specific questions about the patient's physical condition, such as determining whether a presenting patient has thoracic and abdominal traumas, ectopic pregnancy, pericardial effusion, and many other conditions.

High quality emergency care is dependent on rapid diagnostic tools, enhanced safety of emergency procedures, and reduced treatment time. Imaging technology has greatly improved quality of care and made invasive medical procedures safer.

Emergency physicians are trained in the use of imaging equipment during their residency, as well as continuing medical education courses. Hospital privileges further validate this training.

Emergency ultrasound has moved outside the hospital due to its compact nature. In fact, emergency ultrasound technology is helpful on- site during military and disaster medical care. It has served in the care of America's brave military troops during both the Gulf and Iraq Wars. Also, emergency ultrasound was used to care for patients last year after Hurricane Katrina, and will be helpful in responding to other disasters and mass casualty events.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the work of the ACEP Section of Emergency Ultrasound. It has increased awareness of the contribution and value of emergency ultrasound by emergency physicians in the medical care of emergency patients, survivors of disasters, and our military forces serving at home and abroad. Research in this field should continue to be encouraged to allow the adaptation of critical technologies to continually improve the quality of emergency care.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud that today Congress will pass vital legislation based upon legislation I drafted, the Fairness in Immigration Litigation Act of 2006, to close an egregious loophole that allows thousands of illegal aliens to remain in our country every week. Passage of this legislation will result in safer communities across our nation.

Currently, the Orantes injunction mandates that the U.S. Government afford all Salvadoran immigrants the benefit of full deportation proceedings and undermines the authority of the Department of Homeland Security to apply expedited removal procedures. The court order was issued in 1988 when EI Salvador was in the midst of a bloody civil war and was designed to protect those seeking refuge in the United States. However, on January 16, 1992, a peace accord was signed ending 11 years of civil war and implementing strict human rights restrictions. Today EI Salvador enjoys a democratically elected government and a developing economy.

Illegal aliens stream across our border by the hundreds on a daily basis. They present an immediate danger to the lives of people in every Texas community and across the United States of America. For over 14 years I have worked to raise awareness on Capitol Hill about the crisis facing our border communities. I have met with law enforcement officials along the border and discussed this critical issue with my colleagues in Congress, providing those in Washington with a first-hand perspective on how to increase our border security.

However, gangs such as Mara Salvatrucha, otherwise known as MS-13, and members of drug cartels now exploit this loophole in our legal system to thwart our immigration laws and obtain release into our communities. This legislation removes obstacles that prevent our government from effectively enforcing the immigration laws that Congress intended.

The threat of terrorism is real. Each day our border communities witness violence and fear created by ruthless members of drug cartels. We must not allow terrorists and criminals from around the world to abuse loopholes in our legal system, turning our southwest border into a revolving door. The efforts of our law enforcement officials to catch, detain, and deport those who enter illegally must not be obstructed by those looking to abuse the system. I am proud that today Congress will overturn the outdated and obsolete Orantes injunction to protect the integrity of our legal immigration process.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a great American soon scheduled to end his lifelong career of service to our Nation--U.S. Customs and Border Protection Border Patrol Marfa Sector Chief Patrol Agent Simon Garza, Jr.

Born in Laredo, Texas, Chief Garza has spent his entire career fighting to secure our borders and ensure our freedoms. Chief Garza began his career, after studying engineering at the University of Houston, by serving in the United States Army, including service in the Republic of Vietnam in 1969 and 1970. In 1975 he joined the United States Border Patrol as a member of the 10th Session at Port Isabel, Texas. After graduation from the Border Patrol Academy, he received his first assignment in his home State in the Del Rio Sector. After much hard work and determination, Chief Garza was promoted in 1985 to Supervisory Border Patrol Agent. By 1990 he was again promoted to Patrol Agent in Charge, and by 1994 he was part of the senior staff at the Del Rio Sector Headquarters, serving as Assistant Chief Patrol Agent.

One year later Chief Garza's leadership role dramatically expanded when he was named Deputy Chief of the United States Border Patrol in Washington, D.C. There he represented the Border Patrol across the world, including in the Middle East, where he shared his valuable insight and experience with foreign leaders and governments.

After serving in Washington, DC, Chief Garza returned back to the field to lead the Marfa Sector as Chief Patrol Agent. During his tenure as Chief Patrol Agent, Chief Garza has modernized his sector to respond to the growing threats to our national security by utilizing mission- oriented technology and transitioning the Sector Intelligence Unit to a pro-active organization. Day in and day out, Chief Garza and his well- trained staff put their lives on the line to tirelessly work to protect our country.

I am proud to commend my good friend--and a hero to our Nation--Chief Simon Garza, Jr., for his distinguished and honorable career. His straightforward and unwavering leadership will be greatly missed. Congratulations on a job well done, Chief.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my solidarity with the State of Israel in its ongoing struggle against terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah. Despite U.N. Resolution 1559 which demands the disarming of Hezbollah, the organization still operates as an armed force in Lebanon threatening the stability of the region and freedom throughout the world. In fact, prior to September 11, 2001, Hezbollah was responsible for more American deaths due to terrorism than any other organization. This organization continuously fires rockets into Israel, and on July 12 conducted an unprovoked attack into Israel, killing at least three soldiers and kidnapping two.

It is without question that Israel is exercising its inherent right of self-defense by taking action against Hezbollah. Israel's military actions appear appropriate to prevent the further removal of the two kidnapped soldiers into Syria or Iran. It is clear that Hezbollah is supported by direct financial, military, and political aid from Syria and Iran, and Hezbollah also receives important support from sources within Lebanon. In fact, Iranian Revolutionary Guards continue to operate in southern Lebanon, providing support to Hezbollah and reportedly controlling its operational activities.

Congress has already enacted several laws, including the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, and the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 which call for the imposition of sanctions on Syria and Iran for, among other things, their support for terrorism and terrorist organizations.

Israel is and will continue to be one of our greatest allies. Some examples of their cooperation include Israeli produced Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, UAV, that have been used by the United States military to identify targets, survey damage caused by bombs, and provide air support for United States soldiers. The United States military is also currently using Bradley Reactive Armor Tiles, BRAT, originally designed by the Israeli military. One hundred United States Bradley vehicles, which were installed with BRAT, overcame direct anti-armor fire and repelled each attack successfully in Iraq. Most importantly, however, Israel is among our strongest allies in the global war on terror. No free nation can allow this scourge to continue to grow and spread unchecked. The brave and proud people of Israel are standing up to terror and we must stand with them.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask the gentleman from Virginia to engage in a colloquy. I would ask the gentleman from Virginia to do that. This would involve the provision in the bill's committee report that relates to the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

I am thankful that the committee has included language in the fiscal year 2007 bill with the intent to direct the Bureau of Prisons to renew the intergovernmental agreements with four West Texas communities, including Reeves County, which are set to expire in 2007, if these local governments offer the Bureau of Prisons fair and reasonable prices and their facilities meet the Bureau of Prisons' standards.

Further, I am pleased that it is the intent of the committee that this language be binding upon the Bureau of Prisons under application of this appropriations bill.

It is also my understanding that there is a misprint in the committee report accompanying the 2007 Science, State, Justice, Commerce Appropriations Bill. The language in the report should read, as passed by my amendment during full committee markup, that the Bureau of Prisons is directed to renew agreements with local governments housing Federal criminal aliens, if these facilities meet Bureau of Prisons' standards and a fair and reasonable price is offered.

I am hopeful that the chairman will acknowledge that this is the language that was intended.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his support on this issue of great importance to my constituents and the people of the State of Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding. It was once said that one of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and somehow expecting a different result. That is what we are seeing here with these amendments that are being presented, and I would say to any Member who would attempt such tactics that there is a demonstration of a lack of consideration for all of the hard work that has gone into putting these bills together.

Questions have been raised by the author of this amendment about the specificity of where some of the money is going on some of these line items that are being discussed, and therein lies an illustration of the problem that exists here. The grunt work in the trenches that is done day in and day out by Members of the subcommittee, by the good professional staff goes back sometimes many weeks and months. And when these kinds of amendments are brought up, without any knowledge that is even acknowledged by the author of the amendment, it is a frivolous waste of time for Members on both sides of the aisle.

So I would ask any Member who would operate using this tactic to take that into consideration. It is like a football team that takes the field every week with the same team and winds up losing 50-0. And some might say that the team that takes the kick in the tail every week, well, they have good heart because they want to come back again and fight another day. But at some point you have to measure what that person's brain is all about as well and what kind of consideration is shown to those who work hard in the trenches every day for the teams and to those ``fans'' or constituents that are also looking at what we are doing.

So I would ask again that any Member who is using these tactics that it is a great thing to come and present an amendment. Some Members offer amendments on a regular basis that have a true conviction about what they are trying to accomplish, and then they realize that they are not going to accomplish much and they turn around and work on something else.

Wise up, I would say to anyone proposing these kinds of amendments. Again, it is an attempt to do something over and over again and somehow expecting a different result.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5384, and that I might include tabular material on the same.

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 reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I 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.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

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, will the gentleman yield?

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, will the gentleman yield?

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.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 5384 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 830, notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no further amendment to the bill may be offered except:

Pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees for the purpose of debate;

An amendment by Mr. Blumenauer regarding funding limitations for sugar loan rates, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes;

An amendment by Ms. Slaughter regarding funding for Center For Veterinary Medicine;

An amendment or amendments by Mr. Bonilla regarding funding levels;

An amendment by Mr. Latham regarding section 741 of the bill;

An amendment by Mr. Hefley regarding an across-the-board reduction;

An amendment by Mr. Tiahrt regarding funding limitation on competitiveness;

An amendment by Mr. Paul regarding funding limitation on National Animal Identification System;

An amendment by Mr. King of Iowa regarding submission of a report on the National Animal Identification System and certain pilot projects;

An amendment by Mr. Schwarz of Michigan regarding emerald ash borer;

An amendment by Mr. Sweeney regarding a funding limitation on examination, inspection, and processing of horses;

An amendment by Mr. Weiner regarding payments to certain cotton and rice producers;

An amendment by Mr. Carter regarding funding for program integrity activities in Federal Crop Insurance program;

An amendment by Mr. Chabot regarding a funding limitation on the MAP program;

An amendment by Mr. Lucas regarding funding for conservation technical assistance programs;

An amendment by Mr. Gutknecht regarding funding limitation on section 720 of this bill;

An amendment by Mr. Baca regarding funding limitation on operational changes to the Food Stamp program;

An amendment by Mr. Gerlach regarding funding limitation on section 728 of the bill;

An amendment by Mr. Reichert regarding funding limitation on certain milk producer handlers;

An amendment by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey regarding Federal employee attendance at overseas conferences;

An amendment by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey on food stamp program in contravention of the INA;

An amendment by Mr. Engel regarding funding limitation on alternative fuel vehicles;

An amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas regarding claims processing on Pigford v. Glickman case;

An amendment by Mr. King of Iowa regarding the Livestock Identification and Marketing Act;

An amendment by Mr. Boren regarding funding limitation on the transfer of activities from Oklahoma;

An amendment by Mr. Gordon regarding energy standards for Federal buildings;

An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation on dairy education in Iowa;

An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation on fruit and vegetable market analysis in Arizona and Missouri;

An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding for Food Marketing Policy Center in Connecticut;

An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation for greenhouse nurseries in Ohio;

An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation for aquaculture in Ohio;

An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation for hydroponic tomato production in Ohio;

An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation for wood utilization in Oregon, Mississippi, North Carolina, Minnesota, Maine, Michigan, Idaho, Tennessee, Arkansas, and West Virginia;

An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation for the National Grape and Wine Initiative in California;

An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation for income enhancement demonstration in Ohio;

An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation for Appalachian Horticulture Research in Mississippi;

An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation for the Competitiveness of Agriculture Products in Washington;

An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation for Value- Added Product Development for Agriculture resources in Montana.

Each such amendment may be offered only by the Member named in this request or a designee, or by the Member who caused it to be printed in the Record or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to amendment except that the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations and the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate; and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

Except as otherwise specified, each amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. An amendment shall be considered to fit the description stated in this request if it addresses in whole or in part the object described.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree with the gentleman more. The gentleman knows that I have tried to work through this bill as expeditiously as possible. I would concur that we try to expedite this process and minimize the speeches that could be associated with these amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Hopefully, this will set an example for dealing with the remaining amendments. We have cleared this amendment that deals with putting money back into the EQIP program. We have cleared it with the minority, and I ask for an ``aye'' vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. We would be happy to accept the amendment. If the gentleman would like to submit his remarks for the Record, we can vote on this and move on, again with favorable support for the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Let me just first compliment the gentleman from Texas for his hard work on this issue. This school should erect a statue in his honor for all of the effort that he has put in this tirelessly for the last few weeks.

The gentleman is correct. This has been a good program in years past, but it was not an authorized program this time around. And we have tried to work with the gentleman to try to figure out a solution to this.

Mr. Chairman, I am telling the gentleman that we would be happy to accept the amendment. I know that it has been an ordeal to get the language just right so we could move forward with this issue. I want to let the gentleman know that we would be happy to continue to work with him on this.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we have worked on this language, and I have corrected some problems we had with it. And we are happy to accept the language if the gentleman will accept our support for this.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

I will be very brief.

The gentleman is sincere in his effort in bringing this amendment forward year after year after year, and the majority of House opposes it year after year after year; and once again we oppose it today.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this amendment.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman knows absolutely we will continue to

try to work with the gentleman. I know we have had some differences on this issue, but no one has worked harder on this issue in the last few weeks and months than the gentleman from Iowa.

I have said to the gentleman privately, and I will now say publicly, that the people in Iowa, not just in the gentleman's district, that the people in the State should canonize the gentleman, Mr. Latham, for his hard work on a long list of issues that he has worked on in this subcommittee for many years now.

There are some years as the gentleman knows where he consistently is more successful on a long list of issues that is about twice as long. I am the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from Iowa usually gets double of his requests in the bill. That is how hard he works, and that is how effective he is. So whether you win or lose on this issue in the end, I would say to the gentleman from Iowa that the people on both sides of this issue should realize that you doing everything possible and we certainly will continue to work with the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I know the gentleman has worked hard to try to perfect the language in this amendment; but as we see it, very clearly the gentleman's amendment scores at zero. So it would, in essence, not have the effect the gentleman is hoping to have on the WRP program, but it will cost $82 million in cuts.

This is for a program that the Inspector General of the Department of Agriculture cited for $159 million in overpayments over 5 years. So I am glad to see that mismanagement does not bother the gentleman from Minnesota, but it certainly bothers me and other Members of this body.

Again, there is a technicality here that we have a problem with, as we have had some professional staff review this language over and over again. So I would ask the gentleman, since his amendment would not accomplish what he is trying to accomplish, if he would withdraw the amendment and perhaps seek a different remedy.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the point of order and claim time in opposition to the amendment.

The gentlewoman's time has expired, I realize, but just this comment that she is correct, that this is an issue that needs to be addressed by the Congress, and I would encourage Members to address these concerns.

I would be happy to yield briefly.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman presents a good amendment, and we will be happy to offer support for him if the gentleman can submit his remarks and move the amendment to a vote.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in 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 imposes additional duties. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I would like claim time in opposition, even though I am not opposed.

Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that this amendment that the gentleman from New Jersey has worked very hard on tells the Department to comply with existing law, and at this point we have no objection to the amendment and would move the vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, before the gentleman begins, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be read, and the reason I am doing this is because we are not sure which amendment we are addressing and in what order.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

This Congress was the first one in a generation last year to cut discretionary spending. The gentleman's amendment also does not do one thing to reduce spending in the bill.

Yes, it would remove language for the particular project that the gentleman is referencing, but then that money would be reverted back to the Federal agency, to whatever office disseminates this money, and then it would be left to some career bureaucrat to make the decision. Now, there are a lot of professionals that work at that level, but I for the life of me could not understand why we would leave all of those decisions up to the Federal agencies.

Let me also say that this bill, aside from the discretionary spending we cut last year as fiscal conservatives, we cut this bill almost $100 million from last year, and the ``earmarks'' that are being referenced in this debate only make up 2 percent of this bill. So for all the grandiose statements that are being made here about being a champion of fiscal conservatism, big deal.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

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

I would only briefly say again that a vote to support this amendment does not a single thing to cut spending in this bill and would just turn over all the decision-making process to a government agency. The Constitution calls for the House of Representatives to decide how funds are allocated, and I am a great believer in that. I urge all Members to vote ``no.''

Mr. Chairman, again just for clarification, I would ask unanimous consent that the amendment be read so we understand which amendment is before us.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

Once again, the gentleman who is proposing this amendment somehow thinks that this is going to save money in the bill.

Let me point out also, in addition to the remarks I made earlier about cutting discretionary spending and cutting this bill back this year, there have also been cuts in this bill where funding for the Member priorities are down $35 million or 8 percent from last year. So the effort to deal with fiscal conservatism is ongoing and continues from last year when we started cutting discretionary spending. We also terminate eight Federal programs for a savings of more than $4 million.

So anyone who thinks that we are not concerned about fiscal conservatism can look at the facts and figures before them. And we understand that the media likes to talk about Member priorities, but I would suggest that anyone who is truly serious and is not looking for recognition would work on entitlement reform, which is where the vast majority of our government funds go to, and that would really make a big mark on cutting back on spending, not amendments such as this one that do not cut one penny out of this bill. And I hope our colleagues and the constituents that are watching this are not somehow fooled into thinking that this amendment cuts one penny out of this bill.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, Members come to the floor and offer amendments that have either substantive increases or decreases to appropriations bills. I use as an example a sincere Member from the State of Colorado, comes here every year with an amendment to cut spending that has a true impact on the bill. Whether he succeeds or not, there are votes held on that and honest debate is held.

But, again, when amendments are presented in this form, there is no savings. Anyone who suggests that there is a savings in writing amendments like this is a fool, because they are not cutting a single penny from the appropriations bill.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all amendments remaining, with the exception of the last one, be read, just so we know which one we are dealing with, because we have a stack of papers we are looking at.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, to begin the position of those opposed, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

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

Mr. Chairman, I would agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin on the point about trying to associate Members with activities that are well known throughout this town and throughout this country that were inappropriate.

But, unfortunately, when Members come and lack truth and substance and real meat in their debates, they often times resort to try to take a debate to that level. Anyone who opposes a person on an issue or an amendment in this body, to have them associated with someone who has really done themselves wrong and done the country wrong is really bad form and, in the view of I believe the overwhelming majority of the Members of this House, really uncalled for.

So if there are Members here who want to conduct their debates at that level, it is unfortunate, and we cannot stop them. But, again, I hope that we would conduct this debate at a substantive level. And with that, I would again oppose the amendment strongly.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, once again, it appears that the author of the amendment is seeking to acknowledge some frustration and to quote one of his lines here, I do not know what else to do. Again, I would offer advice to not just this Member but any Member that was seriously concerned about further fiscal responsibility again to emphasize this bill is almost $100 million below last year's bill.

We have cut the number of Member projects in it. We cut discretionary spending again last year. So those of us who are truly trying to make a difference are making a difference. Is it enough? Of course not. But if Members are actually looking for honest roadmaps to success in this area, again, the area of entitlements needs to be addressed.

So I would suggest that any Member who really wants to tackle fiscal responsibility in this area go for it. That would matter. Dealing with a budget process before we get to this point, that would matter. Offering amendments that are substantive again, but that would actually have an effect on spending, whether it goes up or down, that would matter. So, again, to address the frustrations that are being expressed here, those are three clear roads to further fiscal responsibility that I would suggest to any Member who might ask.

But, again, to offer amendments that have nothing to do with cutting a dime out of this bill is useless. And I can understand why the feeling of desperation might occur.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) to begin the debate for those opposed.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished, hardworking gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, historically when Members target projects in this body, everybody understands the game. When you talk about tomatoes and aquaculture and programs that have names that do not immediately jump out to people with a true purpose, the press releases go out, the media circles when you walk out of the House Chamber, and there you have your name in the paper as a great slayer of funding programs.

But again, the hard work when you talk about fiscal conservatism as we have again last year cutting spending, trimming this bill down almost $100 million, cutting back on the Member requests, all of those things, that is the work that is done in the trenches day in and day out.

So, again, we all realize in this body what makes a headline. So if you make fun of the tomato and you make fun of the research project that is in a particular State, more power to you. But I think for the most part we are going to find that the Members of this body understand that again there is not a single dime that is going to be cut out of this amendment. True reform comes from the kind of work in the trenches that I have been suggesting, entitlement reform, budget reform, those are the processes that really matter. Or again, in the end, amendments that actually make a difference in terms of spending or cutting the budget.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman who is offering this amendment directly, it is not that we cannot cut spending, because we have. The issue here is that he cannot cut spending with any of the amendments that he is proposing. So, again, I do not know how much more clearly I could say that or any other Member of this body.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

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

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) be considered to have been adopted in the Committee of the Whole with the modifications I have placed at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 5384, the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections and conforming changes to the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 609, the College Access and Opportunity Act of 2006. This legislation will take important steps toward strengthening access, accountability, and affordability for students, teachers, and higher education institutions across our country.

I am particularly pleased by provisions in this legislation to provide year-round and increased Pell Grant aid to certain students. In addition, H.R. 609 will strengthen the TRIO programs, which I have strongly supported since my first election to Congress. Specifically, this bill will increase the minimum grant levels for TRIO programs and ensure our country's veterans are eligible to participate in all TRIO programs and services. I am also pleased that this legislation will reduce red tape and improve flexibility for Hispanic Serving Institutions.

Education is one of the foundations of our Nation's prosperity. This legislation will aid our Nation's students, teachers, and higher education institutions to undoubtedly continue this prosperity. While I do support this legislation, I am, however, very concerned with several provisions regarding private higher education institutions within this bill. Private higher education institutions serve as valuable centers of ideas and innovation in our country. I strongly urge my colleagues to find an equitable agreement to address the issues of concern to private higher education institutions within this bill as it moves forward in the legislative process.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Thornberry makes absolutely clear that this is a situation we need to deal with. While there are tragedies that continue in the gulf states and much of the money being debated in this appropriations bill is going for a much-needed cause, the people in Texas that have been affected by these fires are not getting the attention that others are getting and have been getting now for many, many months.

This has been going on for so many days and weeks with no end in sight. I want to assure Mr. Thornberry this is only the beginning in this process. While he is one of the great leaders in this effort to try to provide some relief for many of our producers that have been affected, the entire delegation from our State is working hard on this. I commit to the gentleman that we will work diligently to try to remedy this and to provide some assistance for these producers that have been affected.

Mr. Speaker, today I wish to recognize and offer my congratulations to the San Antonio Stock Show and Rodeo for receiving honors as the ``Large Indoor Rodeo of the Year for 2005'' and ``Top Rough Stock Remuda of the Year Award.'' Everyone who

worked together to support our world-class rodeo in San Antonio deserves our commendation.

Each year, the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association honors the best of the best in contract personnel, stock contractors and rodeo committees during the annual ``Contract Personnel Awards Banquet'' on the eve of the National Finals Rodeo. The San Antonio Stock Show and Rodeo took home the prestigious honor of ``Large Indoor Rodeo of the Year for 2005.'' The award is especially meaningful because winners are voted on by over 10,000 of their peers in the rodeo industry. It is the equivalent of the national championship for rodeo.

San Antonio made history in 2005 by bringing some new athletes into the rodeo: the roughest, toughest and best livestock from sixteen different stock contractors all over North America. This prompted the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association to create a category especially for the San Antonio Stock Show & Rodeo: the ``Top Rough Stock Remuda of the Year Award.''

The Executive Director Keith Martin and the over 4,000 dedicated San Antonio Stock Show and Rodeo volunteers deserve special recognition. It is their hard work and dedication that makes the San Antonio Stock Show and Rodeo one of the best in the Nation.