Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the service of an outstanding individual, Taryn Fritz Walpole. Mrs. Fritz Walpole has served the people of Texas for 7 years and the people of the 23rd District for 5 years making sure that her fellow Texans remained fully informed on congressional actions.

Mrs. Fritz Walpole's talents were recognized shortly after her graduation from Southern Methodist University. Her preparation there as a dual journalism/political science major anticipated her future career and helped lead to Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison making her a Deputy Press Secretary in 1998. Her successes and contributions to Senator Hutchison's efforts led me to ask Mrs. Fritz Walpole to join my staff. During her 5 years in my office Mrs. Fritz Walpole has set a standard for work that will be hard to replicate. Her accomplishments were recognized with promotions and she currently serves as both my Communications Director and Senior Advisor.

Taryn's gifts were apparent at a very early age. As a crusading reporter at Ravenswood Elementary School Taryn founded the school's first newspaper, the Ravenswood Raven in Burke, Virginia. Never one to rest on her laurels, Taryn was soon at it again, founding the Spicewood Times, at Spicewood Elementary School in Austin, Texas. Therefore, her current achievements should be a surprise to no one.

My colleagues, in the days ahead the State of Texas will be losing the services of Mrs. Fritz Walpole as she embarks on a higher calling. She will be serving the entire nation as Senior Advisor to the Commissioner of the Federal Food and Drug Administration. Texas' loss is America's gain and our nation will be well served by the professionalism of Taryn Fritz Walpole as she ensure that all Americans are adequately informed on FDA actions.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, this is a rare moment in this town when we have a major issue that has widespread bipartisan support. I want to thank the gentlewoman from South Dakota, my original partner in this cause, who just spoke about this and gave a little history as to how we got this bill rolling several months ago; and also Chairman Goodlatte under whose jurisdiction

this bill originally fell, the STOPP Act that we filed, because so many of the programs that we are talking about here today that are funded come through the Agriculture Committee.

We would not have been able to come this far without this partnership with Ms. Herseth and Chairman Goodlatte; and I want to thank both of them, not just personally, but I know there are a lot of people out there that are very grateful for the support they have given this and have brought us to this day where we have a bill that, again, was reported out of the Agriculture Committee by a vote of 40 to 1 and then out of the Judiciary Committee with only three people voting against it. That is a profound statement across partisan lines in this Congress.

It also has widespread support among groups like the NAACP, the AARP, religious organizations, and the American Farm Bureau. I think people understood the impact this bill could have because it is very simple, Mr. Chairman. It says to communities that if they do not care about property rights, they are not going to get their money. No property rights, no money for 2 years. And that is going to make any local government or any State think long and hard before they take that first step toward trying to take someone's property for private gain.

This bill, of course, does not do anything to infringe on the community's rights and the constitutional history in this country of communities taking private property for public use, i.e., airports, roads, bridges, et cetera. It does not touch that at all. So I believe that is why we were able to come to this state. We have gone through the process, worked through regular order. We had our hearings. Attorneys scrubbed the bill. People asked questions, what if this happened, what if that happened. And we tried to address every issue that has come to us thus far.

Again, it is a great day when we have two committees coming together, two parties coming together. People from all over the country, whether they live in a rural area or whether they live in an urban area, have the same concern about property rights after the Kelo decision.

I look forward to a resounding victory today for the people of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2744.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 520, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2744) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring before the House today the conference report on H.R. 2744, which is the Agriculture appropriations bill, which not only covers agriculture, but the Food and Drug Administration and related agencies for fiscal year 2006.

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the good work of the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), my ranking member and good friend, who has contributed greatly to this process. It has been a real pleasure working with her and all the members of the subcommittee in getting to this point today.

I believe we have produced a good, bipartisan conference agreement that does a lot to advance important nutrition, research and rural development programs and still meet our conference allocations on discretionary spending and mandatory spending. My goal this year has been to produce a bipartisan bill, and I believe we have done a good job in reaching that goal.

This conference agreement does have significant increases over fiscal year 2005 for programs that have always enjoyed strong bipartisan support, and they include the following: Agricultural Research Service, $33 million; Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service, $33 million; Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, $7 million; Food Safety and Inspection Service, $21 million; Farm Service Agency, $48 million; Natural Resources Conservation Service, $12 million; Rural Economic and Community Development Programs, $115 million; Domestic Food Programs, $6.5 billion; and the FDA, $40 million.

We have delayed implementation of the country-of-origin labeling for meat, produce and peanuts until 2008. The House voted for delay on COOL while this bill was considered on the floor. There are serious concerns about how this law would be implemented, and this delay gives the Department and the committee of jurisdiction the time to make this policy work.

Mr. Speaker, we refer to this bill as the agriculture bill, but it does far more than assist just basic agriculture. It also supports rural and economic development, human nutrition, agricultural exports, land conservation, as well as food, drug and medical safety. This is a bill that will deliver benefits to every one of our constituents every day, no matter what kind of district you represent.

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

The conference agreement is a bipartisan product with a lot of hard work and input from both sides of the aisle. I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who serve as the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the full Committee on Appropriations. They have been very supportive in moving not only this bill, but other appropriations bills through the Congress as quickly as possible.

I have tried our best to put together a good, solid bill that works for all of America. Much of it is compromise, to be sure, but I believe it is a good compromise and good policy.

In closing, I would also like to thank the subcommittee staff for all of their hard work. None of this could get done without the strong, good commitment, the hard work that this staff puts in day in and day out, sometimes well into the night and covering many weekends: Martin Delgado, the subcommittee clerk; Maureen Holohan, Leslie Barrack, and Jamie Swafford of the majority staff; and Martha Foley on the minority staff. In addition, I want to thank our detailee Tom O'Brien, and a great Texas Aggie, Walt Smith, from my personal staff.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge all of my colleagues to support this conference agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I include at this point in the Record tabular material related to this bill.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28OC05.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28OC05.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28OC05.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28OC05.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28OC05.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28OC05.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28OC05.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28OC05.008

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

Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII, and by direction of the Committee on Appropriations, I move to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2744) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion but first I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that it is a pleasure to work with my ranking member from Connecticut, a person who comes to work every day wanting to see some serious work done and a colleague who has always been very direct about what she wants to accomplish even when we do have disagreements.

On this particular motion I do agree with a portion, in the principle of what the FSA portion says in this motion. The gentlewoman is correct the Department of Agriculture went about there the wrong way in terms of trying to select offices around the country without any input, without any input from the House or the Senate or, if they did choose to listen to input, completely ignored what we had to say.

When I had conversations with those in charge at USDA, I pointed out initially that if there are going to be cuts, we understand that cuts need to be made. Everybody understands that, but we wanted to make sure that if cuts were made and designated positions were listed that they had to have an equal number of positions here at USDA, at the big conglomerate that we have here in Washington.

Do not just cut the field staff that serves farmers and ranchers around the country; but, again, let us make it fair and let us talk about it. First and foremost, we wanted to talk about it openly and have input because we are the legislative body that has oversight on what the executive branch does.

So I do agree with what the gentlewoman has to say. However, the administration has already acknowledged and listened to these remarks that many of us have made in the House and Senate and has chosen to backtrack and withdraw the list of proposed cuts, offices to be closed that was put out just a few days ago.

On the other part of the motion, I would differ greatly with the gentlewoman from Connecticut on the food stamp outsourcing, because as the gentlewoman understands, I support the food stamp program wholeheartedly and it has been historically supported wholeheartedly in a bipartisan way. We have never run short on the program, and everyone who needs to take part in this program has always had a meal and had the food products they needed in their homes regardless of where they live or their ethnic background or what part of the country they come from. But this language, in my view, would tie the hands of some States that are implementing the program and distributing the benefits effectively, including my home State of Texas. But this motion to instruct would also encompass Florida, Pennsylvania, New York, and California.

Now, in terms of outsourcing, it is my very strong belief that if a State is administering the program effectively and they have no outsourcing, that is wonderful. That is fine. But if another State decides, as we do in the State of Texas do it, and I believe the statistic now is about 14 percent of the program is now outsourced, and it works well, then we ought to be allowed to do that. So all I am saying is that the language in this motion to recommit would inappropriately indicate that Congress does not feel like the States ought to be able to administer this program the way they see fit in their community to effectively get the product to the people truly in need. So that is my reason for opposing this motion to instruct.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding achievement of the San Antonio Spurs and congratulate them for winning the 2005 National Basketball Association Championship on June 23. This is the third time in the past five years that National Championship trophy has come home to San Antonio. This was a dramatic seven game series against the Detroit Pistons, and hard fought at every step along the way. Under the guidance of Coach Greg Popovich, the Spurs' Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker, Robert Horry, Bruce Bowen, Nazr Mohammed, Brent Barry, Beno Udrih, Rasho Nesterovic, Glenn Robinson, Devin Brown, and Tony Massenburg played valiantly to bring the NBA trophy back home to the fans of San Antonio. In fact, Tim Duncan earned recognition as the final's most valuable player for the third time due to his performance, leadership and character. In life it's not just whether you win, it's how you play the game. America has seen how the Spurs are a true team of character, no ball hogs, no billboard tattoos, no nose rings. It is a team that worked like a well oiled machine. No longer can anyone in the NBA say ``nice guys finish last''.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

My amendment would do something very simple, and that is it would withhold 10 percent of administrative costs at the Ex-Im Bank until there is an Inspector General in place.

As we all know, Ex-Im Bank's mission is to assist in financing the export of U.S. goods and services to international markets. A by- product of this, of course, is the creation of U.S. jobs and the support of U.S. manufacturers. But all too often, it seems that the Ex- Im Bank is content to conduct operations in the shadows in a questionable manner. There appears to be a lack of official guidance in how credit worthiness is determined. There appears to be a lack of official guidance addressing the small business requirements that Congress has mandated. And more disturbing also is that we ask questions and we get no answers.

People empower us to keep an eye on these expenditures, and they are not being open with Members of Congress. All too simple questions sometimes that are set on basic policy either go unanswered or answered without any substantive information.

For example, in March of this year, I sent a letter to the Ex-Im Bank that, among other things, asked: ``Under what circumstances does EX-IM permit its employees to share information about an ongoing investigation with third parties? The bank has acknowledged that they received my letter. The Director of Legislative Affairs replied that my concerns have been forwarded to the Office of General Counsel, and the General Counsel's office has acknowledged receipt of the letter, but yet the questions remain unanswered. Obviously, their inability to answer basic questions on policy raises a concern that the bank may be operating subjectively and without internal policies or controls to prevent waste, fraud, or abuse.

This agency has existed far too long and with far too great an expense to the taxpayer to not have an Inspector General keeping an eye on it. It is time that this agency provide taxpayers with the assurance that their hard-earned tax dollars are being spent wisely. It is time the Ex-Im respects the role that this body plays in keeping an eye on them and an oversight on this agency, which is very important.

I ask the chairman for his support of this amendment.

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

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

I appreciate the chairman's support of my amendment and acknowledge his very thoughtful remarks. I would, however, point out that private accounting is not independent because they answer to the Ex-Im chairman and not the public. So, again, we are looking for answers. The public empowers us to keep an eye on how these funds are allocated, and they need to have the sun shine on them a little more, and the Inspector General would do that because obviously they are not being responsive at this time.

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

Offered By: Mr. Bonilla

Amendment No. 2: Page 4, line 9, before the period insert

the following:

``: Provided further, That, of the amounts provided under

this heading, $7,000,000 shall not be available for

obligation until the head of the Office of Inspector General

in the Export-Import Bank of the United States is appointed

and confirmed pursuant to section 3 of the Inspector General

Act of 1978''.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his time and greatly appreciate his leadership on behalf of health centers across the country. I also appreciate the years of work that the gentleman from Florida has put in on behalf of health centers, and I dare say the current expansion would not have occurred without his leadership.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to add to the gentleman's remarks by discussing

the need to strengthen existing centers, like the one in my congressional district, Uvalde County Clinic. Although Uvalde County Clinic has a remarkable record of controlling costs while serving thousands of patients, they are still seeing cost increases that are forcing them to make decisions on what services to continue and which to cut back if increased funding is not available.

As a matter of fact, their funding has been cut this year since HHS has not yet sent out the base grant adjustments provided by this bill last year due to the new policy of reducing each center's grant by the across-the-board cuts approved last year.

As the chairman is aware, over the past few years, the President's budget has not included increased funding for existing centers to meet the rising costs, but each year we have ensured that some portion of the increase was provided for base grant adjustments. Unfortunately, this bill does not include any funding for base grant adjustments, and I would hope as we move through the process we are able to find a way to set aside some funding for existing centers for base grant adjustments.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's commitment to this program and hope that he will continue to work through the legislative process to ensure that the funding for the health centers program can be closer to the President's request and also include specific funding for base grant adjustments in the final bill.

Again, Mr. Chairman, the chairman has been a true champion of the health center program, and I look forward to our continued work together to expand community health centers to those most in need.

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. 2744 and that I may 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 2006 appropriations bill for agriculture, rural development, the FDA and related agencies. As many people know, this bill does not just fund agriculture issues that are so important for the Nation and the world but also funds the Food and Drug Administration, the Women, Infants and Children program, and the food stamp program. There are a wide variety of issues that are very significant to this Nation and the world.

This is a bipartisan bill, Mr. Chairman. I am very proud this year to have worked for the first time with the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), who was a great partner in putting this bill together, as are all the members of the subcommittee. This is a great subcommittee that comes to the table every day with sometimes differences of opinion, but at the end of the day want to get a bill done. As chairman of this subcommittee, it has been a very fulfilling experience to have gone through this process with this great group.

We have difficult challenges every year when we put this subcommittee mark together and when we put the bill together. We had over 2,100 individual requests from Members; so with the good staff that we have that I will get into a little more later, we have had to go through with a fine-tooth comb every request to make sure that it does not overlap with another request and then to prioritize all of these very important issues that come from Members all over the country.

I would also like to thank the staff for working on this. I want to take a moment to mention some very important names who have worked on this bill, sometimes day and night and on weekends as well: Martha Foley of the minority staff; and Maureen Holohan, Leslie Barrack, and Jamie Swafford of the majority staff. In addition, I want to thank our detailee Tom O'Brien and Walt Smith from my personal staff; and, of course, my distinguished clerk, Martin Delgado, who does a fabulous job on this bill. I also want to take a brief moment to recognize Joanne Perdue who worked on the committee for several years and retired from the committee just this past month.

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to point out just in very broad terms that this bill takes care of a lot of issues that are critical not just to agriculture producers but to consumers in terms of food safety, research projects that are going on in every State in this Nation. A lot of people go to the grocery store, Mr. Chairman, and they see that big truck pulling up in the back of the store and unloading goods that are put on shelves and in the freezers at the local grocery store and their products that are sold at a high quality for a good price. Quite frankly, most Americans do not know all of the policy and all of the research and all of the hard work that goes into putting that product on the shelf so that Americans can go into the store, use those coupons and enjoy themselves and the quality of life that it brings to Americans all across the country. Again, there is a lot of detail that goes into putting this bill together.

I am also very proud to work hand in hand with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), our authorizing chairman, who has been a partner in this process not just this year but every year. So all of these policies and all of these programs that I am talking about here have been a team effort.

Mr. Chairman, I include at this point in the Record the following tabular material related to the bill:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN05.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN05.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN05.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN05.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN05.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN05.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN05.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN05.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN05.009

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Yes, Mr. Chairman. It is my understanding that there are benefits to the Organic Transition Program being managed as part of the Integrated Organic Program, and my intention is that it should continue to be managed as it was in fiscal years 2004 and 2005.

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

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

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), a member of the subcommittee.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski).

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Chairman, the gentleman has worked very hard on this project; and at this time, as chairman, I would like to commit to trying to resolve this problem to his satisfaction between now and the conference.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, we have no additional speakers at this time.

Madam Chairman, in the interest of moving forward and moving to the amendment process, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, I would like to briefly explain the amendment and the purpose of the amendment.

First of all, the amendment cuts $40 million from the Common Computing Environment account and increases the value-added market development grants by $40 million. The amendment also reduces the Conservation Operations account by $20 million, and it increases the Watershed Rehabilitation account by the same amount.

I understand that Members may have some concern with these transactions that we are involved with here, but the reason that we are doing this today is to accommodate some legitimate concerns raised by the authorizing committee about some of the mandatory limitations in this bill. I have worked closely with the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Goodlatte) over the years, and I intend to work with him closely in the future, especially as he prepares to write a new farm bill. While I would have preferred to keep the CCE account funded at the highest level possible, I am confident that when we get to the conference with the Senate that we will be able to restore funding to this account.

So let us keep this funding moving forward, and I ask for Members' support on this amendment. It is my understanding that the minority has agreed to this amendment, so we hope to expedite debate.

Madam Chairman, we are willing to accept this amendment and move forward.

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Chairman, the gentleman has worked very hard on this important issue, which is very important to students around the country; and we would be happy to accept the amendment and move forward and move it to a vote if the gentleman would like.

Madam Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.

Although I certainly understand and share the concerns that many Members have about plant, pests and diseases that devastate crops and trees, I must say that we have done our absolute best to fund eradication and control of plant pests in the bill that you see before you today.

Funding includes, among other things, for the Asian long-horn beetle, it is at $15.3 million. Also, across the country, the glassy-winged sharpshooter, 24 million; the emerald ash borer, 14 million; Citrus canker, $36 million, very important to our Members in Florida. And the list goes on.

Emerging plant pests alone are funded at over $100 million in this bill. In addition, tens of millions of dollars go to fund programs to stop Medfly, the boll weevil, brucellosis, the gypsy moth, and many others. Every Member has some interest represented. And we

have carefully balanced things out so that agriculture is best protected, and that is what we all want.

Those are the appropriated amounts, and when there is an emergency situation, the Secretary has authority to use funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation for eradication and control. For sudden oak death, an additional $9 million was approved this year, and requests are pending for 11 million for the emerald ash borer and $5 million for the glassy-winged sharpshooter.

We are watching the use of emergency funds closely. There is no way that appropriated dollars substitute for the emergency funding that these agriculture emergencies demand. I am also very concerned about the amendment due to the offset proposed to cut the common computing environment. I do oppose this amendment once again and urge a ``no'' vote.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition the gentleman's amendment.

This is a very important issue, and we tried our best to fund it at the appropriate level. I have had discussions with the gentleman about trying to work with him as we move to conference to attempt to increase this line item somewhat, to address the problem that the gentleman is addressing in a very sincere way here today.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that title VII be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment as part of the agreement that I referred to earlier with the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.

I am offering the amendment under the agreement that we would add $40 million back to the Environmental Quality Incentives program account. That is what the amendment does, and it is paid for by increasing the limitations on the Conservation Security program, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives program, and the Farm and Ranchlands Protection program.

Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor) has worked very hard on for some time and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) is offering on his behalf, and we are happy to accept the amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, is it the gentleman's intention to withdraw his amendment?

I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.

Mr. Chairman, absolutely. Let me point out that the gentleman from Kansas is not only working hard on this particular issue, but he is a key player on agricultural issues that we deal with on a daily basis here in Washington. I am not only on this issue, but whatever issue the gentleman brings forward, we are ready and willing to discuss, work with and solve problems with him. He comes to the table every day very serious about these issues and truly in his heart wants to solve issues that face agriculture across the country.

Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I ask unanimous consent from this point on debate on this amendment be limited to 30 minutes with 15 minutes allotted to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg) and 15 minutes allotted to myself who will rise to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my unanimous consent request is to allow 15 minutes for the proponent of the amendment and 15 minutes in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg) to control 15 minutes and to be split between myself and the minority 7\1/2\ minutes each in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's understanding is correct. In reality, there will probably be more speakers in favor of the Rehberg amendment.

No.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. This is an issue that many of us have been working on for many years. The country-of-origin labeling provisions that were part of the last farm bill would present a nightmare to many producers in this country. Good, salt-of-the-earth people in agriculture know that this would impose up to $1 billion in additional costs to their already overworked people and to their budgets, which are already being taxed.

This is also an issue for anybody who believes that grocery stores and retailers are part of Americana in this country, and they would rise in strong opposition to this amendment because there is a liability in the country-of-origin labeling that would in essence make your friendly corner grocery store liable for trial lawyers to come in and say you did not put the fact that this calf may have been born in one country, processed in another country, and now on the meat counter in your local grocery store. Now the lawyers can come along and say, we are taking you to court, causing the price of beef to go up for American families. That is not something that would reflect favorably for anyone in this country, whether you are a producer, a retailer or a consumer.

This is a marketing issue. I realize there is an intent by this country-of-origin labeling provision to mandate that these labels be put on products. Nothing could be more anti free enterprise than to mandate labeling on a product. If consumers want this, they will ask their retailer to put it on the product so they can favor that product over another.

I am not sure what the origin of the country-of-origin labeling provision was in the last farm bill, but there is no doubt it would create additional costs that consumers would have to bear.

I would also want to compliment the chairman of the authorizing committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), for introducing a bill to make this country-of-origin labeling provision voluntary. There are dozens of cosponsors on the bill. It is a bipartisan effort. Many of us have been working on that for a long time, and we hope that this provision that I have put in this bill remains by voting no on the Rehberg amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), a distinguished Member from the great City of Midland.

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

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation 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.''

This amendment directly amends existing law.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has discussed this amendment with us and with the minority; and to forgo further debate, I would be happy to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 30 minutes, to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment and any amendment thereto be limited to 30 minutes to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent.

Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to this amendment, and yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), for whom I have a great deal of respect, has worked on this issue for some time. I know he also has a separate legislating bill that he is trying to move through the process, where this issue and this whole topic could be more appropriately addressed through the authorizing committee.

This amendment will shut down an industry without having a hearing, or any due process. The amendment creates a crisis for animal health issues. It prohibits USDA from inspecting horses that may have West Nile virus, or vesicular stomatitis, both of which can affect other animals and humans if those horses are destined for slaughter.

The estimated cost to feed and care for 50,000 horses is at least 60 to $100 million per year. Who will pay, or will more horses go to the rendering plant instead? What is the real effect of this measure? There is no way of knowing, because it has not been vetted through the process.

Demand for the product will not change. Almost all of the meat from the U.S. is exported, and those countries will simply find another source. I oppose this amendment very strongly.

Mr. Chairman, I yield for as much time as he may consume to the chairman of the authorizing committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Chairman, I yield for as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), chairman of the authorizing committee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 2744 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 303, 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;

Amendments printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 3 and 6;

Amendment printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 5, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes;

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

an amendment by Mr. Tiahrt, regarding regulations;

an amendment by Mr. Brown of Ohio, regarding school food program;

an amendment by Mr. Kucinich, regarding genetically engineered fish;

an amendment by Mr. Kucinich, regarding BSE testing;

an amendment by Mr. Weiner, regarding minimum guarantees for agriculture funding for States;

an amendment by Mr. Stupak, regarding FDA clinical trials;

an amendment by Mr. Stupak, regarding FDA whistleblowers;

an amendment by Ms. Kaptur, regarding Emerald Ash borer;

an amendment by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey, regarding 213A of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Each such amendment may be offered only by the Member named in this request or a designee, or 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. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the authorizing committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd), a distinguished member of our subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson), who is a member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), the distinguished ranking member of the authorizing committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), who will wrap up this debate for our side, again strongly opposing this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would be happy to work with the gentleman and anyone associated with this issue to ensure that the Economic Research Service examine the high energy costs of natural gas prices and their impact on the rural agricultural economy.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to hear the term ``corporate welfare'' that was brought before the public to a large degree in the previous administration to try to attack a lot of private sector investment opportunities that helped create jobs. This does not fall into that category.

This is a situation where individual companies that receive assistance from the MAP program have to match 50 percent of any funds received. In addition, participants are required to certify that Federal funds used under the program are to supplement and not replace private sector funds.

Farmers, ranchers, and rural business owners from all regions of the country benefit from the program's employment and economic effects from expanded agricultural export markets. More than 1 million Americans have jobs that depend on exports. This program helps to ensure that American agricultural products have export markets.

MAP is an effective program and deserves everyone's support. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Goodlatte), also in opposition to this amendment.

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for bringing this issue to the forefront. It is something that I have been working on and many other Members as well, and we are committed to working through conference to address the gentleman's needs.

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 yield myself such time as I may consume.

Again in a bipartisan way, this subcommittee works very hard to put a bill together each year with the majority-passed budget constraints that we have to live under. The gentleman from Colorado is a good Member who comes to the table year in and year out, and sometimes week in and week out, with an effort to cut the bill even further. However, again, with all due respect to his efforts, the bills that we put together on appropriations are done as a part of a team effort. We feel like we are at the rock bottom number that we could possibly be at at this point and strongly oppose the amendment.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. This is somewhat unusual, and I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey's (Mr. Garrett) concern in this area. However, this is almost like going into a neighborhood and seeing a family that is playing by the rules and respecting the law and we are going to pass a law that says you have to do that all over again. So, in our view, it is unnecessary and duplicative and there is no indication that USDA is doing anything to contradict statutory provisions right now related to collection from sponsors of food stamp benefits paid to sponsored aliens.

So, because of the redundancy and the statement of the obvious, frankly, I would oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I would just note that the responsibility for enforcing the laws that the gentleman is referring to actually fall under the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS, and the State welfare departments. States are responsible for making demand for and collecting from sponsors any benefits paid to sponsored aliens. So there is no indication that the USDA is violating any of these regulations and rules, again emphasizing that the responsibility for compliance here lies with other agencies and some at the State level.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.

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 reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment, but I do understand that the gentleman is going to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman is going to speak on his amendment, but I just want to let the gentlemen know that we are happy to accept the amendment and move forward with the vote as soon as he would like.

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

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of Rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part:

``An amendment to a general appropriation 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 reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of Rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part:

``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

The amendment gives affirmative direction in effect.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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 Committee on Appropriations have until midnight, June 3, 2005, to file a privileged report on a bill making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a fallen hero--senior Border Patrol Agent, Travis W. Attaway of D'Hanis, Texas. Travis met an untimely death while serving our country and securing our Texas borders in the McAllen sector.

On September 19, 2004, days of harsh rain and a rising Rio Grande tragically interrupted what otherwise was a routine three-man patrol operation near Free Trade Bridge in Los Indios. When rushing waters capsized the 19-foot patrol boat, Travis and two other agents were ejected into the river's strong current.

At the young age of 31, Travis has marked history as a true American hero. He sacrificed his life to protect the citizens of this great nation. Today, we honor his memory and the memory of all our Fallen Law Enforcement Officers for National Police Week 2005.