Floor Statements

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill, and I congratulate the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman, for taking a firm, strong, aggressive stance to secure our borders, because that is one of the issues that is first and foremost on the minds of Americans, whether they are on the border or whether they live 2,000 miles away.

Since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of non-Mexican illegal immigrants, also known as OTMs, apprehended on our borders. In fact, some border patrol sectors have reported a 300 percent increase in OTMs this year alone. This problem has grown exponentially, in part because the Department of Homeland Security has failed to take a strategic approach to detention and removal that ensures that every illegal immigrant apprehended is properly deported.

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the chairman has worked hard to produce a bill that will fund additional enforcement, within budget limitations, and has set forth directions in the report accompanying the bill to get the Department headed toward a solution.

I also want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee for hearing my concerns regarding the so-called ``catch-and-release'' policy that allows OTMs to be released on their own recognizance. Last summer, I was in communication with then-Secretary Ridge and then-Under Secretary Hutchison regarding this issue, and they responded by authorizing expedited removal for all OTMs apprehended by the border patrol. Unfortunately, the Department has implemented expedited removal in only two districts. I am therefore pleased to see this issue is addressed, as well, in this bill.

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the chairman is absolutely correct. Expedited removal would allow the Department to save money while addressing the OTM problem. I would also add that taking such enforcement action would help deter OTMs from attempting to immigrate illegally in the first place.

I once again thank the chairman for taking the time to hear the concerns of our border communities and for responding so readily. As a fellow subcommittee chairman, I know the difficulties in finding solutions that meet

budgetary restrictions, and I appreciate the directions he has given to the Department, which will make great strides to ensure that this critical issue is addressed.

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Musgrave

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the classic beverage producer, Coca-Cola Company. Coca-Cola has been involved in its community and our Nation since the founding of the company. Through involvement in programs such as ``Reading is Fundamental'' and the U Promise Program, they have continually served the public. This history of public service was recently recognized when the Coca-Cola Company was awarded the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, USHCC, Corporation of the Year Award at the 25'' Annual National Convention and Business Expo in Austin, TX.

As the company's promise states, ``The Coca-Cola Company exists to benefit and refresh everyone it touches.'' Such a recognition of the Coca-Cola Company by USHCC only reinforces the commitment Coca-Cola has made to make their promise come true.

The Coca-Cola Company strives to reach out to the Hispanic community through a variety of programs. These programs primarily focus on education, which Coca-Cola believes is a ``powerful force in improving the quality of life and creating opportunity for people and their families around the world.'' Of close to 30 programs, three--the Art of Harmony, the Coca-Cola First Generation Scholarship Program, and the Coca-Cola Valued Youth Program--stand out in exemplifying the company's determination and willingness to ``benefit and refresh.'' Through programs such as these, Coca-Cola has encouraged students who may not have a family history of going to college, or the financial stability to succeed once they get there, the means and motivation to excel.

Again, Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to recognize the Coca-Cola Company as the recipient of the USHCC Corporation of the Year Award and bring to light their outstanding efforts within the Hispanic community.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

First, let me compliment the committees who put this bill together. They have done a great job facing very complicated circumstances. Specifically, they did a very good job about increasing the Border Patrol staff, that we need to deal with the increased flow of illegal immigration along the southwest border, along with other Federal agents that are necessary to do the job.

Unfortunately, there was an oversight in the bill in providing bed space for the people that we catch. Let me point out as well that the overwhelming number of them now are categorized as they are by the Border Patrol as OTMs, ``other than Mexicans,'' people trying to enter our country that have figured out a different way to come in versus the ports of entry on either coast or using other means.

Mr. Chairman, in many cases the OTMs, are now arrested, processed, interrogated and released into communities because the Department of Homeland Security does not have

enough bed space. So, believe it or not, in Texas alone, since January, there have been over 15,000 OTMs released in communities throughout the State in the neighborhood. They might have been introduced into any neighborhood in Texas, no matter where one lives.

Mr. Chairman, this is an outrage. Homeland Security claims the problem is bed space, so in this amendment we deal with that problem, calling for 2,500 additional bed spaces in 2006 and another 2,500 in 2007.

This is an amendment that is supported by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), Chairman of Homeland Security. It is also supported by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), my good friend, who represents an area near the Mexican border and the Gulf Coast in Texas and who has been working very hard on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, this is a nonpartisan issue. We have strong support by other members of the committees working on this. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), my good colleague and friend from San Antonio and central Texas area, has been working hard on this issue as well. This is also something that is supported by, again no matter what ethnic group or political party one belongs to, especially on the southwest border. There is strong support by the mayors, the county judges, the county commissioners that are working very hard to deal with this illegal immigration problem every day.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to just single out the wonderful Border Patrol agents that are patrolling day and night, sometimes working with fewer resources than they should have, and doing a great job of patrolling the border. Help is on the way for them in terms of manpower and hopefully this amendment, when adopted, will provide the bed space as well to house the illegal aliens that are coming across our border and taking advantage of what we now have along the Mexican border.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I would yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for a quick question.

Mr. Chairman, did the gentleman acknowledge in the end that he would vote for the amendment? I wanted to understand that clearly.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his answer.

I wanted to reiterate that in spite of the rhetoric that was just heard from the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), my colleague, he is supporting the amendment. I am delighted to hear that.

The gentleman makes a lot of good points about problems that the Department of Homeland Security has faced over the last couple of years. I agree with the gentleman. That is why I am here trying to do something about it.

But, again, in spite of the rant that we just heard about how bad the problem is, and I can assure the gentleman that I have probably delivered the same remarks in my district, and here in Washington as well, about the problems that the Department of Homeland Security is facing, but ultimately we are all here to try to do something about it.

So I would hope that the gentleman would not only vote for the amendment, as he has indicated he will, but also tell his friends that we need this help for our good agents that are patrolling the border and for all of us who are trying to do something about it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Neugebauer amendment. This is a hard chore to accomplish. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) has been working day and night to make this work.

Every producer in this country that has ever come to see me before about a pending problem, an emergency situation that they face, people who represent different commodity groups, know that we have always done everything we possibly can to help them. But it is difficult. Money does not grow on trees and sometimes we have to take from one place and put it in another to make it work for the foreseeable future. It is no different than American families have to do when they have to struggle to make ends meet during emergency situations in their own homes and in their own neighborhoods.

We have always tried to be fair. In the years that I have chaired the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, I have learned a lot, heard a lot and worked a lot on situations similar to this over the years. There is always a different solution that we try to look for.

In this case, we do have an offset that applies to one particular program, the CSP program. But tomorrow will be another day and we will figure out how to handle a shortfall, as we always do, in the future when we face a pressing need.

I would say to everyone out there who has concerns about this, tomorrow is another day. Today is the day we have to get this done for producers and for commodity groups all across the country.

Again, I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) for working day and night to try to pull this deal together. It is a good deal.

Is everyone happy? Absolutely not. But it is the best that we can possibly do. Our hearts are in the right place, and we have worked hard to get to this point.

I urge all of my colleagues to support the Neugebauer amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 719) requesting the Senate to return to the House of Representatives the bill H.R. 4766, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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 the further consideration of H.R. 4766, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a simple amendment that would transfer money from the Common Computing Environment, an amount that totals $120,957,000, and would put that into a lot of services that are very vital to communities, especially rural communities out in the heartland.

It would put $52,873,606 into the Farm Service Agency salaries and expenses. It would also put $40,458,661 into the Natural Resources Conservation Service and $27,624,733 into Rural Development salaries and expenses.

Now, to explain a little further, this amendment would provide funds to a lot of county-based agencies that deliver critical farm programs, economic development in rural areas and the delivery of conservation technical assistance.

The Farm Service Agency delivers farm credit programs to all farmers and ranchers across America.

The Natural Resources Conservation Service delivers conservation technical assistance to producers all across the country.

The Rural Development is very critical to many Members who have these smaller towns and communities in their congressional areas, providing economic opportunity and housing opportunities to Americans from border to border and from coast to coast.

This is a good amendment, and again, it gets money in the people's hands that truly need it out there. At this time, I would encourage all Members to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object, and ask for a clarification as to the nature of why the gentlewoman needs this unanimous consent?

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman should be assured that there was absolutely no intent on the majority's part to interfere with the gentleman's issue that we expected him to raise today. So I just hope the gentleman understands that clearly, and the majority is not objecting to our returning to this portion of the bill. The objection was raised by the minority.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to work with the gentleman on the issue that he is trying to raise here today.

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

Mr. Chairman, speaking on my point of order, the amendment offered by the gentleman from California proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read. The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read. The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

It is the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio. I correct myself.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 10 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 amendments thereto be limited to 10 minutes, to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent.

I would suggest to the gentleman that he consult with the ranking member.

Parliamentary Inquiry

The unanimous consent request was that debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 10 minutes, to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent.

And any amendments thereto.

And any second degree amendments.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

The unanimous consent request simply applies to this amendment.

No.

Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to revise the unanimous consent request to say 15 minutes from this point on.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my unanimous consent request.

Mr. Chairman, before I state my objection to the amendment, I would advise Members that if amendments are being brought by the minority Members, that they consult with the ranking member and with the leadership, and once agreements are made about unanimous consents in the future, so that there does not have to be confusion on the floor in response to the unanimous consent. So the request would simply be made in good faith for a little more team work and organization so that we do not have delays like we just experienced that wind up defeating what we are trying to do.

But back to the subject at hand. I am rising in opposition to this amendment that is currently under consideration. We are aware of the sudden oak death causing severe problems, and I share the concern of the authors of this amendment.

In May, USDA transferred $15.5 million in emergency funds to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to help halt the spread of sudden oak death to noninfested areas of the United States. The APHIS contingency fund, which is an appropriated account, provided an additional $2.5 million for sudden oak death this year. The bill before us contains almost $2 million for sudden oak death eradication in fiscal year 2005, the same amount as provided in fiscal year 2004.

The emergency authorities that allowed for the additional funding of $18 million in 2004 are also in effect for 2005. Some of that $18 million will be carried over into 2005. So I really think that we are prepared, if the problem is extensive, for anything that may occur in the future, and we can certainly adjust and work with the authorizers and with authors of this amendment to adjust that if necessary.

And, again, I am opposed to the amendment and want to state that clearly.

Mr. Chairman, as the amendment is being brought forward, I would like to reserve a point of order. We have not seen this amendment yet.

I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read. The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to hear the ruling on the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I would state that I appreciate the gentleman's statement and would work with him to both support the development of the biotech industry and protect the environment and food supply.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this amendment. We have not seen this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I do have a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read. The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear that I oppose this amendment. This is a very important issue that the gentleman from New York raises. We have increased the funding in APHIS to address situations like this around the country. This was at the request of the gentleman from New York and also the other gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), who sits on the subcommittee.

We realize that there may be an additional need for more money down the road, and if that need does arise, it could come from the CCC fund under emergency designation. So this is not like we are ignoring this issue. We simply feel like we, for the time being, have put sufficient funds into this account and would address it later if needed.

So, again, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 20 minutes to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment for several reasons. First, the additional $400,000, a 50 percent increase above the fiscal year 2004 level, would go to the Inspector General for dog fighting and cockfighting enforcement and result in offsetting cuts in critical OIG activities such as BSE investigations and fighting food stamp fraud. Does the gentleman really wish to cut these programs? These are very important functions.

Second, the Department has told us that animal fighting enforcement is difficult to implement because it is just a misdemeanor offense under the Federal Animal Welfare Act. Adding more money to the budget will not solve this problem. There is, however, proposed legislation in both the House and the Senate to make animal fighting a felony offense. If that legislation is enacted, then it may be appropriate to consider additional funds in the future. OIG is strongly opposed to this amendment.

Third, we cannot justify a 50 percent increase in this program when we have cut overall discretionary spending on ag programs by $67 million from last year's levels. This bill already is very supportive of programs to ensure the humane care and treatment of animals. The bill already includes, for example, $800,000 for animal fighting enforcement in the Office of Inspector General's budget. Further, we provided $315,000 for animal welfare and a $225,000 increase for regulatory enforcement in the APHIS program and have fully funded $5 million for enforcement of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act and the Food Safety and Inspection Service.

If the sponsors of this amendment were serious about this, programs like the ones I just mentioned are the ones that should be cut to pay for this amendment; but then that would force them to prioritize, like we all have to do. We have put a lot of work into this bill, and we feel like we have addressed all the issues being addressed here today. I would strongly support continuing along that road and rejecting this amendment.

I oppose this amendment and want to make that very clear.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce).

Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to work with my friend from Ohio to ensure that these funds continue to go to the Ohio State University as they have in the past.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I do 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.''

This amendment directly amends existing law.

I would also like to point out in this point of order that the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) is an outstanding Member who works with us on many issues in this bill, and this issue is especially important to him and we recognize that.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman raises a very important issue, and we addressed this with report language in last year's bill. We will continue to try to work with the gentleman on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman raises a very important issue in his amendment, and just for the record, we would be delighted to support the amendment.

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

This is difficult to support. The gentleman raises some good issues in his debate and his amendment, but, again, this is a rural development cut that he is proposing which, as we heard earlier on the floor, there is strong support for all of these programs out in the heartland. So I reluctantly would oppose this effort, oppose this amendment because of where the money would come from.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to this amendment.

Yes, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for a brief question.

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 Nebraska.

Well, Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman raises a very, very good issue here that needs attention. This is an issue, however, that up until the last 24 hours was not an issue that we were aware of, although I know the gentleman has been working on it for some time now.

What we would like to do is look into this issue and see what is going on over at the FDA. And I certainly agree that government at all levels must be held accountable for decisions made by its public servants. This may be a case in which accountability is lacking, which is something we should all be concerned about.

So I pledge to the gentleman that we will try to figure out exactly what is going on here so that he gets an appropriate answer.

Mr. Chairman, I believe we are now out of time.

I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 more minute on this issue.

THE CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas may strike the last word, if he wants to, an additional time between amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word in the event the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) has any additional information on this.

I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

I yield to the gentleman from Iowa for a brief comment on this matter.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Iowa and the gentleman from Nebraska.

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Chabot

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I recall in the previous administration they cutely coined the phrase ``corporate welfare'' any time there was any attempt by this institution or others in this country to fall on the side of free enterprise and the private sector. So I think this is one of those occasions where that phrase is being exploited to a great degree.

I want to point out that there are many positive aspects of the Market Access Program. The fiscal year 2005 funding level on this program authorized by the farm bill will be $140 million from the Commodity Credit Corporation to help initiate and expand sales of U.S. ag products: fish and forest products overseas.

Rural American farmers and ranchers are the primary suppliers of commodities that benefit from MAP. All regions of the country benefit from the program's employment and economic effects from expanded agricultural export markets. So there is probably not a State in this Nation that does not see a direct benefit from this. Ag exports are expected to reach a record $61.5 billion this year. There are well over 1 million jobs related to ag exports. This program goes a long way towards making sure American ag products have export markets.

Mr. Chairman, for those that argue there is corporate welfare, to use that cute phrase again, it is accurate that agricultural co-ops and small companies can receive assistance under the branded program. To conduct branded promotion activities, individual companies must provide at least 50 percent funding.

So it is not simply a complete giveaway, as might be indicated here. For generic promotion activities, trade associations and others must meet a minimum 10 percent match requirement. Participants are required to certify that Federal funds used under the program supplement, not replace, private sector funds. Many regulations limit the promotion of branded products in a single country to no more than 5 years.

Those are the facts. This is a program that has been around for some time, and we feel it has worked very well for the American people.

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 authorizing committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the ranking member of the authorizing committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for raising this issue today and pledge to work with him to arrive at a satisfactory resolution.

I agree that implementation of this regulation is long overdue and should be concluded immediately. As the gentleman suggests, a spending limitation on the Department's fiscal year 2005 appropriation may well be an appropriate step if the implementing regulations are not finalized in the very near future. I would hope, however, that we could be successful in convincing the Department of the serious need to conclude this matter on an expedited basis. Further delay is simply unacceptable.

Let me assure the gentleman that we will work with him to bring this issue to closure as quickly as possible. If we need to consider additional action as the appropriations process moves forward, we will do so.

I thank the gentleman from California.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanders

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I would like to state that we have seen the gentleman's amendment, and if he would like to just move the question, we would be happy to accept it if the gentleman sees fit.

Mr. Chairman, we will be happy to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. Chairman, I yield to a large number of Members who will ask for unanimous consent agreements; and I also note, Mr. Chairman, that in each case there will be an alternate from the majority and the minority to show strong bipartisan opposition to this amendment.

I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

(Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Jenkins).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Chandler).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis).

(Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode), a distinguished member of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr).

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

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

As the entire House of Representatives can see, there is strong bipartisan opposition to this amendment, and it is a tribute to the Members for coming down here and expressing their strong views.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a point here that speeches are being made on this floor as though there is some tobacco buyout money in this bill. There is zero money in this bill for any tobacco buyout, zero money. So some of the speeches being given here are about spending something that we are not intending to spend anyway. There is nothing in this bill. I cannot emphasize that any more clearly.

So, as Members start to appear in support of this amendment, again, I hope to any constituent who might be listening out there, they might be asking themselves what are they talking about.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purposes of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purposes of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Davis).

(Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purposes of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for raising these two very important programs, value-added grants and rural broadband loans, which are so valuable to rural America, and I will work with the gentleman and the Rural Caucus as we move through this process. And I thank the gentleman for raising this issue.

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment. I rise to say we do not have opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I would like to inform the gentlewoman that we have reviewed this amendment and would be happy to accept the amendment if she would like.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman has already voted to zero out the agriculture buildings and facilities account. Cutting the CIO account would result in a direct loss of Federal jobs. The amendment for farmers markets would result in an increase of $5.2 million, or a 600 percent increase.

The minority views in this report highlight a lot of funding shortfalls; and we have been reviewing them, not just today, but since they have arrived when they were completed. Not one of the amendments that has been offered today attempts to put money in any of the programs that were highlighted in the minority views. In fact, this amendment adds money to a newly authorized program.

I oppose this amendment and I ask that all Members who care about this bill oppose it as well. This is, again, somewhat of a flailing to try to put money into this program when, again, we find it interesting that many of the views expressed by the minority on this bill, none of those were addressed but yet there is an attempt to put money into this program.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I reiterate our strong opposition to this amendment and urge a ``no'' vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his remarks.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

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

Mr. Chairman, I will make a point of order, but I do want to point out that the gentleman raises a very important issue. It is just that it does not fit in this particular part of the bill.

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 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 claim the time in opposition, but I am not opposed to the bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that this amendment just says that if FDA determines a product is safe and effective for over-the-counter use, it should approve the application.

I do not know why we should single out any particular product. Every product should have to meet a set standards to be sold without a prescription. But that is current law, and I do not object to the gentlewoman's amendment, based on the wording and what the amendment actually says.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank the gentleman for his comments.

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

Mr. Chairman, we have not seen the amendment, so at this time I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition; however, I want to emphasize that the amendment that the gentleman from Wisconsin is offering today has been reviewed and cleared, and I am prepared to move on and accept it. So I withdraw the point of order earlier raised.

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

Mr. Chairman, as we have not had a chance to review this amendment, I would like to reserve a point of order on this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would inform the gentleman that, to our knowledge, this is the last amendment; and we are a little bit stumped as to why we would not have a copy of the amendment here. We are concluding a major appropriation bill.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington to discuss this issue.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments; and in closing, I would just urge all Members on the upcoming votes on the three amendments to vote ``no,'' and ``yes'' on final passage.

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

Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

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 the bill (H.R. 4766) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, and that I may include tabular and other extraneous material.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agricultural Research Service, $69 million above the request;

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

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

Farm Service Agency, $25 million above last year;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JY04.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JY04.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JY04.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JY04.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JY04.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JY04.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JY04.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JY04.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JY04.009

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask to enter the following tribute recognizing President and Mrs. Reagan's involvement in the war on drugs into the Congressional Record.

A Tribute: President & Mrs. Ronald Reagan's Leadership in the War on

Drugs

We, representing countless parents. community volunteers,

civic leaders, business leaders, physicians, teachers, church

leaders, policy makers, law enforcement officers, media

representatives, and youth from across America, want to

express our deepest gratitude to President and Mrs. Reagan

for their extraordinary leadership in the battle against

drugs and for saving the lives of so many children through

drug prevention. Together they encouraged and supported a

nationwide effort to reduce the demand for drugs by

increasing Americans' knowledge and changing the attitudes

and behavior. They inspired us with hope, knowledge, and

conviction. The result was a dramatic turn around in illicit

drug use in America, and thus lives were saved, health care

costs were reduced, crime was reduced, and innovative

strategies and scientific research were developed to enhance

drug abuse treatment, prevent AIDS, and other drug-related

social problems. Our nation and the world owe them a

tremendous debt. We recommit ourselves to continuing in this

noble fight to protect our children from the nightmare of

drugs and to carry forward the message of prevention with

hope and optimism.

Milestones of the Reagan legacy include: Raising the

drinking age throughout the country from 18 to 21. The

workplace drug prevention program including federal drug

testing and standards. Nancy Reagan's Just Say No campaign

that ratified and promoted the Parents' Movement. These

programs brought about a dramatic fall in illegal drug abuse

throughout the nation after two decades of rising levels with

the peak coming in 1978 and the bottom in 1991. President

Reagan's leadership was a key in this element in this

historic progress.

Robert L. DuPont MD, First Director of National Institute

on Drug Abuse, President of the Institute for Behavior and

Health, Inc., Maryland.

Joyce Nalepka, Drug Free Kids: America's Challenge, former

President of Nancy Reagan's National Federation of Parents

for Drug Free Youth, Silver Springs, Maryland.

Edward Jacobs, MD, FAAP, Everett Clinic, Everett,

Washington,

Theresa Costello, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Daniel Bent, Fair Mediation, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Sue Rusche, National Families in Action, Atlanta, Georgia.

Eric Voth, M.D. FACP, Chairman, Institute on Global Drug

Policy, Topeka, Kansas.

Michelle Voth, Kansas Family Partnership, Topeka, Kansas.

David Evans, Esq., Drug Free Schools Coalition, Flemington,

New Jersey.

Calvina Fay, Executive Director, Drug Free America

Foundation, Inc., St. Petersburg, Florida.

Peggy Sapp, National Family Partnership, Miami, Florida.

Steven Steiner, DAMMAD, Tioga Center, New York.

Steven Steiner, Barton, New York.

Rebecca Hobson, Richton, Mississippi.

Brenda Truelove, Gainesville, Georgia.

Karen Dewease, Petal, Mississippi.

Julie Steiner, Barton, New York.

Mikki Howard, Austin, Indiana.

Martha McWhirter, Lawrence, Mississippi.

Susie Dugan, PRIDE Omaha, Omaha, Nebraska.

Judy Dinerstein, Naperville, Illinois.

Betty Sembler, Chairman, S.O.S.--Save Our Society From

Drugs, St. Petersburg, Florida.

Grainne Kenny, International President, EURAD (Europe

Against Drugs).

John English, Springfield, Oregon.

Susan Baum, Loyalhanna, Pennsylvania.

Frank Richardson, Binghamton, New York.

Patsy Parker, Moss Point, Mississippi.

Sharon L. Smith, President--MOMSTELL, Mechanicsburg,

Pennsylvania.

Connie Moulton, Committees of Correspondence, Danvers,

Massachusetts.

Robert Peterson, Esq., Vice President of International

Affairs, PRIDE Youth Programs, Fremont, Michigan.

Jay DeWispleare, Executive Director, PRIDE Youth Programs,

Fremont, Michigan.

Lea Cox, Concerned Citizens for Drug Prevention, Norwell,

Massachusetts.

Jack Gilligan, Global Drug Prevention Network, Peoria,

Illinois.

Malcolm K. Beyer, Jr., Student Drug-Testing Coalition,

Jupiter, Florida.

Peter Stoker, Director, National Drug Prevention Alliance,

Great Britain.

Carla Lowe, Legal Foundation Against Drugs, Sacramento,

California.

Jim Kester, Austin, Texas.

Beverly Barron, Former Executive Director of Texans War on

Drugs, Odessa, Texas.

Peggy Goble, Great Meadows, New Jersey.

Karin Kyles, New Canaan, Connecticut.

DeForest Rathbone, Chairman, National Institute of Citizen

Anti-drug Policy, Great Falls, Virginia.

Mr. & Mrs. Robert Dey (DEA Retired), Georgetown, Texas.

Ginger Katz, President of the Courage to Speak Foundation,

Connecticut.

State Representative Toni Boucher, Assistant Minority

Leader District 143, Connecticut.

Geraldine Silverman, New Jersey Federation for Drug Free

Communities, Short Hills, New Jersey.

Wevley William Shea, Anchorage, Alaska.

Beverly J. Kinard, President, Christian Drug Education

Center, Canon City, Colorado.

Judy Kreamer, Educating Voices, Inc., Naperville, Illinois.

Becky Vance, Executive Director, Drug Free Business

Houston--A division of the Council on Alcohol and Drug Abuse,

Houston, Texas.

Cathey Brown, Rainbow Days, Inc., Dallas, Texas.

Lynda Adams, Alaskans For Drug Free Youth, Ketchikan,

Alaska.

June M. Milam, Former CEO DREAM, Inc., Madison,

Mississippi.

Joyce Tobias, Parents' Association to Neutralize Drug &

Alcohol Abuse (PANDAA), Annandale, Virginia.

Judy Cushing, President/C.E.O., Oregon Partnership,

Portland, Oregon.

Judy Arendsee, Rancho Sante Fe, California.

Stephanie Hayes, Former Board Chairman, Texans War on

Drugs, Alpine, Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life and legacy of President Ronald Wilson Reagan. As we mourn this great loss we reflect on the many ways our country is stronger, freer and more prosperous as a result of President Reagan's fearless leadership.

A firm believer in lower taxes, sound fiscal policies and reduced regulation, President Reagan launched the boldest economic plan since Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. As a result of his leadership and tenacity, the federal tax code was greatly simplified and taxes were reduced, ushering in the restoration of prosperity. He encouraged people to have confidence in their nation and trust that things really were getting better--a sentiment that economic and social indicators would eventually confirm. In fact, President Reagan's reforms led to the longest period of peacetime growth in U.S. history.

President Reagan's leadership also sparked a nation, movement against drugs which resulted in dramatic declines in illicit drug use in America and around the world. President Reagan was committed to reversing the permissive attitudes of the 1960s and 1970s that illegal drug use was glamorous, harmless and victimless. President Reagan inspired and convinced the nation that the drug problem was not hopeless and could be solved. As a result of his leadership, the nation spoke with one voice in denouncing drug sue. Largely due to his efforts, illicit drug use was cut in half and crime, drug related hospital admissions and highway deaths declines.

President Reagan restored America's sense of optimism and patriotism. A true believer in the American Dream, he proclaimed America as a place where ``everyone can raise as high and as far as his ability will take him,'' and referred to his own humble beginnings as proof. He taught all Americans and newly liberated people across the globe that hard work and faith in God could result in prosperity and a better outlook for tomorrow.

President Reagan will perhaps be most remembered for his efforts to stomp out communism world wide and end the Cold War. President Reagan simply refused to accept Communism's claim to moral superiority. From the beginning of his presidency, Reagan realized that America could not afford passiveness or weakness in the face of Soviet defiance and escalating nuclear threats. President Reagan recognized that peace could only be achieved through strength and diligently worked to restore faith in our military and a sense of American pride in the efforts of our servicemen and women. Efforts to restore our military superiority were coupled with a willingness to dialogue and a sincere desire to negotiate an end to the nuclear arms race. President Reagan was able to negotiate a treaty with the Soviet Union to launch the process of real arms reduction. His efforts eventually led to the destruction of the Berlin Wall, the fall of communism and the end of the Cold War. President Reagan's leadership ushered in a new era of freedom and democracy, not only in the Soviet Union, but throughout the world.

President Reagan planted democracy in regions of the world that have never tasted the joys of freedom. He swept up a downtrodden America with little response to or respect for leadership and reenergized their faith in freedom, the Presidency, and our military. President Reagan's vision and convictions brought ALL Americans together, raised our morale and once again made us the proudest citizens in the world. He will be remembered not only in the minds of Americans, but in our hearts as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the March 2, 2004, decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in the case of USTA v. FCC. This decision represents the third consecutive time that many of the FCC's rules for the unbundling of network elements have been judicially reversed. This includes an opinion by the Supreme Court in 1999 in the case of AT&T v. Iowa Utilities Bd. The FCC's attempts to enact unbundling rules continue to be struck down because they fail to apply the Telecommunications Act of 1996's limiting standard.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 required the FCC to establish unbundling rules pursuant to standards that the Congress legislated. The FCC after 8 years has still to carry out its statutory responsibilities.

It is my hope that the FCC will revise its rules forthwith, and with due attention to the limiting standard required by law.

Mr. Speaker, as the Chairman of the appropriations committee that funds the Food and Drug Administration, I feel that I must register my concerns.

We have seen user fees for human drugs, animal drugs, and now medical devices. That is fine--companies are paying for a service, and they have been able to invest in FDA to gain efficiency.

Mr concern arises over requirements in the user fee legislation for certain levels of appropriations for those programs--usually referred to as ``triggers''. Medical devices is the most extreme example. The authorizing legislation requires tremendous increases in appropriated funding.

I would like to submit for the Record a letter that Chairman Young and I sent to Chairman Tauzin last October outlining these concerns.

October 21, 2003.

Hon. W.J. (Billy) Tauzin,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of

Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Tauzin: We are writing to you as our partners

in maintaining the viability of the Food and Drug

Administration (FDA). We have a very collegial and positive

working relationship with your Committee in its role as

authorizers for FDA activities, and we appreciate your

diligence in providing critical oversight. However, we write

to you today with concerns we have as appropriators with the

responsibility for setting annual appropriations levels for

the FDA.

We see a trend occurring within the authorizing legislation

for user fee programs. Prescription drug user fees were first

authorized in 1992. That legislation included a ``trigger''

which required that appropriations for FDA as a whole and for

drug review, in particular, meet certain levels in each of

the years that the user fees were in effect. The two

reauthorizations of those user fees retained the

appropriations requirements; in fact, in the last

reauthorization in 2002, additional triggers were added. Also

in 2002, medical devices user fees were enacted. Again,

requirements for FDA appropriations were integral to the user

fee legislation. In the case of the medical device

legislation, the requirement for appropriated funding of the

medical device program included substantial and sustained

increases in budget authority. The authorization language

stipulates that if the cumulative appropriations trigger is

not met, the user fee program will cease at the end of fiscal

year 2005. This requirement was included without consultation

with the Committee on Appropriations.

Most recently, the House and Senate have passed similar

legislation allowing for the collection of animal drug user

fees. Again, both the House and Senate versions of the bill

contain requirements for certain levels of FDA

appropriations. According to some published reports, your

Committee had received assurance from the leadership that

funding levels for animal drug reviews would be increased in

fiscal year 2004. Again, the Committee on Appropriations was

not consulted in these negotiations.

In effect, these triggers in user fee legislation earmark

FDA funds for human drugs, medical devices, and animal drugs.

The Committee on Appropriations has always supported FDA as a

whole and has resisted efforts to add budget authority to one

program area at the expense of another. If we let user fee

triggers drive our decisions, the FDA programs to suffer

would be those not covered by fees--blood, vaccines, counter-

terrorism activities, food safety, or bovine spongiform

encephalopathy (BSE) prevention. We firmly believe that a

strong FDA must balance the needs of all its mission areas to

best benefit public health. We have serious concerns about

the prevalence and scope of appropriations requirements

embedded in user fee authorizing legislation for FDA, and

about the lack of consultation with our Committee in

legislating such requirements.

A larger problem is the fact that your Committee's

jurisdiction over the Agriculture Appropriations Bill is

limited to the FDA. It is our Committee's task to establish

fair allocations of resources among competing interests under

the jurisdiction of all authorizing committees. Legislating

triggers for individual programs serves to thwart our efforts

at fairness by favoring a limited number of programs at the

expense of others in our bill--including the Special

Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and

Children (WIC), agriculture research, and conservation

activities. These programs are critically important to many

members and their constituents.

As always, we are available to discuss the issue with you,

and would be glad to do so. We share your dedication to

improve the effectiveness and viability of FDA's programs

that are crucial to our nation's well being.

Sincerely,

C.W. Bill Young,

Chairman, Committee on Appropriations.

Henry Bonilla,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development,

FDA and Related Agencies.