Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask to enter the editorial ``Aiming High: Academy Still Soars Above Rivals in Terms of Academics and Research Work,'' which appeared in the Colorado Springs Gazette on October 30, 2003, into the Congressional Record.

Aiming High: Academy Still Soars Above Rivals in Terms of Academics and

Research Work

Wednesday in this space we dabbled in the negative,

wrestling with some of the continuing fallout from the Air

Force Academy sex scandal. Today we accentuate the positive,

mindful, as we all should be, that the occasionally

disheartening headlines we see concerning the academy hardly

present a fair and balanced reflection of what remains one of

the nation's premier military and academic institutions.

What brings this to mind is a document that landed on our

desk this week, the school's ``Annual research Report,''

which will be distributed to the four-star and invited three-

star generals attending next week's Corona Conference at the

academy. While not something the academy is attempting to

spoon-feed the media in an effort to polish its

reputation,the report catalogs some truly impressive

accomplishments out at the academy--in part a result of the

leadership shown by the dean of faculty since 1998, Brig.

Gen. David A. Wagie.

Wagie, as readers may be aware, last month was singled out

for special criticism by the Fowler Commission, a

congressionally appointed panel responsible for the latest

regurgitation of the academy sex scandal. Its report

suggested that Wagie hadn't been held accountable for

problems that occurred during his tenure. And that's led to

speculation that Wagie could be the next Air Force official

invited to fall on his sword to assuage Washington witch

hunters. But by at least one critical measure of

performance--the school's academics--the general seems to

have been doing an outstanding job.

The school's academic environment in recent years

consistently has been ranked among the nation's best by the

Princeton review. In 2000, the academy earned the review's

top ranking for providing the best overall academic

experience for undergraduates; and it tied for third in that

category in 2001, 2002 and 2003. Last year the school also

took top honors in terms of professor accessibility, the

study habits of students and the excellence of its library.

FAA's undergraduate engineering program was ranked fourth

best in the nation by U.S. News & World Report in 2000, 2001

and 2002; and sixth in the nation in 2003.

We read a lot these days about cadet surveys, mostly

revolving around the school's sexual climate or reform

efforts. But in another survey, the National survey of

Student Engagement, fourth-class and first-class cadets in

2002 ranked the school highly in terms of academic challenge,

active and collaborative learning, student-faculty

interactions and a supportive campus environment.

During his tenure, Wagie has brought the academy into its

own as a top-flight research university. Funding for research

has quintupled since 1997, from $2.6 million to $123 million

this year, collaborative research work with private

companies, universities and federal agencies has increased,

and five new research centers have been added, engaging the

talents of 887 faculty or staff and 230 students.

And the research has real world relevance for the Air Force

and the nation. One team of academy researchers solved a

battery problem plaguing the unmanned serial vehicles playing

such an important role in the war on terror, doubling the

air-crafts's range and greatly reducing battery costs. And

they did it in less than two months. The school also in the

past year provided high performance computing supporting

addressing stability problems that have plagued the V-22

tilt-rotor aircraft program, and helped enhance the

capabilities of C-130 ``Commando Solo'' aircraft, which

handle psychological operations and civil affairs broadcast

missions in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world.

In spite of being buffeted by occasionally ugly news, it's

clear that on at least one important front--academics--Wagie

and the academy continue to soar high above most other U.S.

institutions of higher learning.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference agreement; and as we consider this bill, I would like to take a minute to recognize one of the star players behind the scenes.

Lots of folks out there watch us on television and in committee hearings and markups and think that the Members of the House are the ones that actually do all the work, cross all the T's, dot all the I's, and check all the legalese, and we do check all that; but the people that do the work day in and day out are the great staff members of the committees and subcommittees. I am losing a key member of this team, the clerk for my agriculture appropriations subcommittee, and his name is Hank Moore.

As many of my colleagues know, Hank has announced he will not be with us next year as we work our way through this process. He has decided after 30 years of working here for the Federal Government that he would like to spend more time with his family and is retiring.

Mr. Speaker, most Americans probably do not realize, as I did not when I first arrived in the House of Representatives, that this bill is 1,200 pages long. There are countless paragraphs, clauses, commas, sections, outlays, all kinds of terms that are put in this bill; and it has to be done right year in and year out. And while many of us are dealing with the substance of big issues as we develop these bills each year, good members of the staff, like Hank Moore, are there on weekends, late at night making sure that all of the language is exactly right every step of the way.

As I have worked with Hank, and I frequently use football terms on occasion, but I want him to know that I have always been very grateful that every time I turned around, the ball was there. Every time. It made my job a lot easier, and it made the job of a lot of folks that preceded me in the Committee on Appropriations a lot easier. I want to wish him well, and his family, and let him know that we will miss him.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring before the House today the conference report on H.R. 2673, providing appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, the Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies for fiscal year 2004, and for other purposes.

I want to acknowledge the good work of the gentlewoman from Ohio, Ms. Kaptur, my ranking member, who has contributed greatly to this process. It has been a pleasure working with her and all the members of the subcommittee on both sides of the aisle.

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 meets our conference allocations on discretionary 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 2003 for programs that have always enjoyed strong bipartisan support. Those increases include:

Agricultural Research Service, $54 million for Salaries and Expenses; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, $2 million; Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, $33 million; Food Safety and Inspection Service, $30 million; Farm Service Agency, $18 million; Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund, $482 million; Reimbursement for net realized losses of the Commodity Credit Corporation, $990 million; Natural Resources Conservation Service, $12 million; Rural Cooperative Development Grants, $15 million; Renewable Energy Program, $23 million; Broadband Telecommunications Loan Authorization, $522 million; Domestic Food Programs, $5.4 billion, including Child Nutrition Programs, $837 million and Food Stamp Program, $3.6 billion in program expenses as well as $1.0 billion in reserve to respond to economic conditions; Foreign Assistance and Related Programs, including P.L. 480, $45 million--excluding last year's supplemental appropriation; and Food and Drug Administration, $12 million.

Mr. Speaker, we all refer to this bill as an agriculture bill, but it does far more than assist basic agriculture. It also supports human nutrition, the environment, and food, drug, and medical safety. This is a bill that will deliver benefits to every one of our citizens every day. 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 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; 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. In particular, I 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. Speaker, we have tried our best to put together a good, solid bill that works for all America. Much of it is compromise, to be sure, but I believe it is a good compromise and good policy.

In closing, I would like to thank the subcommittee staff for all their hard work: Hank Moore, the subcommittee clerk; Martin Delgado; Maureen Holohan; Joanne Perdue; Martha Foley of the staff of the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey; and Walt Smith, from my personal office. Without their good work, we would not have a bill here today.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have worked hard to bring a good conference agreement to the House. We have made prudent recommendations for the use of the budgetary allocation available to us, and we have done yeoman work in keeping the bill free of contentious issues that have caused concern in prior years. I think we have a very good conference agreement. In closing, I would certainly hope that all Members would support this agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record detailed information regarding the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies included in this omnibus legislation.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.046

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.047

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.048

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.049

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.050

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.051

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08DE03.052

Mr. Speaker, it is with heavy heart I submit the following statement. Chairman Joe Skeen, our former colleague form the State of New Mexico, passed away on Sunday evening due to complications from Parkinson's disease.

Chairman Joseph ``Joe'' Richard Skeen was born in Roswell, Chaves County, NM, June 30, 1927, and graduated from O'Dea High School in Seattle, WA, in 1944. He went on to receive a B.S. from Texas A&M University in 1950. After fulfilling a commitment to the United States Navy and spending time in the United States Air Force Reserve, Joe turned his sights to public service and the causes of the rural residents of the State of New Mexico. Joe served his State as a member of the New Mexico State Senate, chairman of the New Mexico Republican Party, and as a delegate to both the New Mexico and National Republican conventions numerous times from 1962 to 1970. In 1980 Joe was elected to the 97th Congress as a write-in candidate, only the third in history. Chairman Skeen served longer than any other New Mexican in the House of Representatives, from 1981 to 2000. He was

also the first New Mexican to serve on the House Appropriations Committee, and served with distinction as the chairman of both the Agriculture and Interior Subcommittees.

A great family, a fine State, and a grateful Nation all lost a wonderful champion, colleague and friend on Sunday. Joe will be missed often and I hope that we who continue in his place, may carry on the tradition of caring and service, which Chairman Skeen truly exemplified.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life of Maj. Gen. George Ruhlen. Maj. Gen. Ruhlen loved this country and lived a life of service protecting the freedoms we hold dear. Maj. Gen. Ruhlen was a graduate of the United States Military Academy and completed regular courses at the Field Artillery School, the Army War College and the National War College. He was a great patriot and served this country well, commanding the Third Armored Field Artillery Battalion, 9th Armored Division during World War II. His battalion participated in the defense of Luxembourg, Bastogne, and the capture of the Ludendorff Bridge over the Rhine River at Remagen. Maj. Gen. Ruhlen's actions in the capture of the Ludendorff Bridge were of extreme significance, helping to hasten the end of the war in Europe. This historic capture allowed over 25,000 American soldiers, tanks, artillery and trucks to cross the bridge safely. In addition, Maj. Gen. Ruhlen served with honor in overseas postings in Japan, Taiwan and Pakistan. He went on to serve as Commander of the 1st Armored Division, Deputy Commanding General, Fourth U.S. Army and Commanding General, Fort Sam Houston. Maj. Gen. Ruhlen received the Silver Star for Gallantry in Action during the Battle of the Bulge. He was also the recipient of the Distinguished Service Medal, the Bronze Star with Oak Leaf Cluster, the Legion of Merit and the Belgian, French and Luxembourg Croix de Guerre. His leadership and valor were an inspiration to those who knew him. He was truly a great American.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the motion to go to conference on H.R. 2673, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2673) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time we reserve the balance of our time.

Madam Speaker, I would suggest at this moment to the gentleman from Wisconsin if he has additional speakers to go ahead and proceed.

Madam Speaker, as I stated earlier, we are in opposition to the motion.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to empathize that this trip by the congressional delegation was historic. It was a bipartisan trip; and I congratulate my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), for putting this incredible group together. It was a large group and it reached across the political spectrum.

All of these Members were taking this situation in Iraq very seriously and they were seeking the truth about Iraq. We were all choosing not to just get our information from news media reports that appear each night on the networks or from some of the major newspapers that only take snippets of what is actually happening in Iraq.

The truth we discovered was that the 31-member coalition has a solid grip, a real plan on improving and stabilizing a free Iraq by helping rebuild the infrastructure, establishing border security, and also trying to help build a new military for Iraq that would be on our side and would fight side by side with us, Iraqis working with us to create a country that is no longer an outlaw nation and no longer led by a rogue dictator in Iraq.

This is important to the safety of our people. And I think the strongest message we have for anyone out there who is mulling this issue over in their mind is this is about creating a safer world, about a safer country, about fighting the war on terrorism in Iraq and winning, because ultimately it will eliminate this haven and this opportunity for terrorists to thrive in that part of the world.

I was so impressed that the delegation came back, again, in a bipartisan way and reached the same conclusion. The conclusion says we must win this war on terrorism in Iraq and we must stand with our State Department, with our military, with Mr. Bremer, the administrator who is doing an incredible job in Iraq. We must win this effort. And, again, this is a bipartisan effort that we feel very strongly about, and we will be debating this in the next day as we approve the funds that are necessary to complete this mission.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Fiscal Year 2004 Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary Appropriations Act. This bill includes funding which will help protect and strengthen the many communities in the 23rd district. I am particularly pleased that the report to accompany this bill includes language which will be beneficial to those communities which contract with the Federal Bureau of Prisons for the detention of inmates. The report originally included language encouraging the Bureau of Prisons to use existing state and private prison capacity to meet their bed space needs. At my request, this language was amended to add local prisons to the list of facilities which the Bureau of Prisons is directed to use. This small but important change will direct the Bureau of Prisons to take advantage of existing locally run detention facilities such as the Reeves County Detention Center. It is my sincere hope that the newest 1,000 bed facility at the Reeves County Detention Center will be utilized by the Bureau of Prisons to provide cost effective housing to federal prisoners. Use of this facility would be particularly beneficial to the Bureau given the low cost of housing inmates in this area. I thank Chairman Frank Wolf for his attention to this matter which is of great importance to Reeves County and saves taxpayer dollars.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the consideration of H.R. 2673, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 2673) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes; and pending that motion, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that general debate be confined to the bill, and be limited to not to exceed 1 hour, the time to be equally divided and controlled by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and myself.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring before the House today the fiscal year 2004 appropriations bill for Agriculture, Rural Development, the Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies.

My goal this year has been to produce a bipartisan bill, and I believe we have done a good job in reaching that goal.

The Subcommittee began work on this bill with the submission of the President's Budget on February 3rd. We had ten public hearings beginning on February 26th, and we completed our hearings on March 20th. 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 all contained in eight hearing volumes.

The Subcommittee and full Committee marked up the bill on June 17th and June 25th, respectively.

We have tried very hard to accommodate the requests of Members, and to provide increases for critical programs. We received more than 2,380 individual requests for specific spending, from almost every member of the House. Reading all of the mail I received, 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 is dependent on that member's support of the Committee in general, and of this bill in particular.

This bill does have very limited increases over fiscal year 2003, or over the budget request, for programs that have always enjoyed strong bipartisan support. Those increases include:

Agricultural Research Service, $39 million above the request.

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, $38 million above last year, and $31 million above the request.

Food Safety and Inspection Service, $30 million above last year.

Farm Service Agency, $33 million above last year.

Natural Resources Conservation Service, $23 million over last year.

Rural Community Advancement Program, $223 million above the request.

Food and Drug Administration, $14 million over last year.

Mr. Chairman, we all refer to this bill as an agriculture bill, but it does far more than assisting basic agriculture. It also supports human nutrition, the environment, and 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 they 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 serves 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).

In particular, I 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 would like to include at this point in the Record tabular material relating to the bill.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JY03.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JY03.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JY03.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JY03.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JY03.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JY03.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JY03.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JY03.008

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 to strike the last word.

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

Mr. Chairman, as we all know, we are proceeding with this bill under regular order. I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), my ranking member, for once again helping to produce the best bill we possibly could under the circumstances. We were working under some incredible fiscal limitations this year versus last year, and this is a bill that was produced by a subcommittee that has a history of working together.

The last time we had our bill on the floor, we had over 400 votes in support of the bill; and I am very proud of that. I think every member of the subcommittee understands that we try to work with every last person and try to honor every request that they have. We cannot always do everything that everybody wants, but we certainly give it our best shot. This is the year, as many Members know, that we also had to deal with over 2,300 individual requests. That is a lot of requests that our good staff has to keep track of day in and day out as we moved toward this day; and I would like to commend the staff, both the majority and the minority, as they have worked so diligently especially in the last few days around the clock to try to get us to this point on the floor so we could have a good bill to present to the folks.

So I am very proud of this product. Again, nobody always gets everything they want in bills like this, but we certainly have done the best we can.

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

Mr. Chairman, I will be brief and to the point. This has been a tough budget year. This is a tough bill, but it is a fair bill, and the gentleman brings up some very good points that need to be addressed. But, again, having done the best we can possibly do under the circumstances, I hope that people understand that we wished we could have done more but we were just not able to.

Certainly the accounts that this amendment would increase were not treated unfairly in any way, and this is how they are funded in the bill. For example, the Office of Civil Rights is at last year's level plus increased pay cost. Departmental Administration is at last year's level plus increased pay cost. Hispanic-Serving Institutions is held at last year's level, so there is no cut there, which in this day and age I believe people should be pleased with an outcome like that. The Outreach Program is also at last year's level.

The gentleman's amendment would do the following: It would more than double the Office of Civil Rights, giving that office a 104 percent increase; increase the Departmental Administration account by 5 percent; increase Hispanic-Service Institutions programs by 15 percent; and increase the Outreach Program by a whooping 144 percent.

Let me emphasize that if we had the money to do this we would be doing cartwheels in supporting these kinds of increases, but we are doing the best we can under the limitations we have in putting this bill together.

The money that would be taken from the USDA's Common Computing Environment Account, and while that does not sound like a grand program, let me emphasize that this takes care of the way that a lot of these programs are processed, like the work at the Farm Service Agency, the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Rural Economic and Community Development Programs. This amendment would take $8.6 million away from USDA's ability to meet those needs, and that would indeed create a lot of hardship out in the heartland.

Mr. Chairman, we worked very hard to present a well-considered and fair bill to the House. I ask Members to stick with the committee and defeat this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, there is not a Member of this body that does not believe in treating animals humanely. However, I oppose this amendment for several reasons:

First, the $800,000 that would go to the Inspector General would go to dogfighting and cockfighting enforcement, and it would cut buildings and facilities funding for rent and maintenance that are already underfunded.

The Inspector General's office has told us that enforcement of this will be done at a minimal level since this is a misdemeanor offense. Now, one could argue the pluses and minuses on whether it should be a more serious offense, but these are misdemeanors that are dealt with by local law enforcement agencies from around the country, and they cannot afford to devote their resources at the IG level because of this reason. The IG tells us that one case alone could cost $800,000.

Second, one of the reasons that we are debating this amendment today is that the Humane Society of the United States points out that this vote will be counted on the Humane Scorecard this year. The only reason that this item is even on their scorecard is that we have addressed all other of their concerns in this bill. We provided a $437,000 increase for animal welfare, $1.1 million more for regulatory enforcement in the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and fully funded the enforcement of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act in the Food Safety and Inspection Service.

If the sponsors of this amendment were serious about this, programs that the HSUS supported like the ones that I just mentioned are the ones that would be cut to pay for this amendment, but then that would force them to prioritize like the rest of us have to do.

If every Member of the House brought an amendment to the floor just because they did not get every last nickel that they wanted, we would be here all day and we could never get this bill done.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to not vote against this amendment simply because I am suggesting that they do, but vote against this amendment because of the following statement by an HSUS Vice President who said, ``The life of an ant and that of any child should be granted equal consideration.''

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, once again the gentleman brings up some very good points in his amendment, but we have done the best we possibly could under the limitations we have this year; and the offset the gentleman is looking at, again, would hurt the implementation of a lot of programs that we have discussed earlier. So for that reason I would oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, there is strong bipartisan opposition to this amendment in this body. It is interesting to note on this occasion when amendments are presented before this body how much misinformation is presented. For the proponents of this amendment to in any way indicate that you cannot put labels on any meat products at this time is absurd. This is a free country.

Any producer, any retailer right now can stick a label that says ``Made in America'' on any aisle in any frozen food section, in any section of the grocery store if they choose to do that.

The misinformation about whether or not this amendment affects mad cow disease is one of those fear-mongering arguments that is often times made in this town and around the country when you are trying to reach people at the emotional level and not at all talking about the truth in substance about the issue at hand.

This country-of-origin labeling on meat products that is in the bill, the prohibition on funding, has absolutely nothing to do with mad cow disease. But again, this argument is being pulled off the shelf to try to scare people into voting for this.

This prohibition that we have put in this bill simply says that USDA will not be able to work on enforcing, promulgating, developing any kind of regulation for a year until there can be more ample study and understanding of the bill.

This country-of-origin labeling provision that was put in the farm bill last year is controversial and costly. Many of our producers out there are shaking in their boots right now wondering about the liability that they would be faced with, the action that could be taken against them by people who would simply hold them accountable for not putting the proper label on their product. It could drive them out of business.

Grocery stores in this country, I do not care what part of the country you live in, if you have got a Safeway, if you have got a, like in Texas, an HEB Food Store or an Albertson's, all of the people who run those grocery stores are opposed to this amendment because they have a tremendous liability laying before them if that product is not labeled appropriately.

So if you are interested, any Member who votes for this amendment that is

being presented by my colleague today would in essence would be voting to increase the grocery bill and create sticker shock the next time Americans go through the meat section in a grocery store. So that is what you would have to face if you vote for this amendment.

The cost of this implementation of country-of-origin labeling has been estimated on the low end so far by those who have been working on this at USDA to be $2 billion. Overall most people agree that that is a very conservative cost estimate; and, in fact, the cost of implementing this would be much, much higher and guess who is going to pay for that, Mr. Chairman? That is why we are completely opposed to this amendment.

This has bipartisan support to be opposed to this amendment. The chairman of the authorizing committee, the ranking member, so many others that are part of the Hispanic Caucus, the Black Caucus, all across the board, again, members of the authorizing committee are also opposed to this. And they are working on this issue, having hearings, trying to deal with this country-of-origin labeling in the appropriate way. We are just asking with the provision in our bill to give them the time to do that.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 50 minutes and that the time be equally divided.

The Chairman is correct.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the distinguished chairman of the authorizing Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) as a demonstration of strong bipartisan support in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley), a Member who is considered an expert in this field.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) who has a great expertise on this subject.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

Mr. Chairman, I have no requests for time, and I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Once again I want to reiterate that often times in this town, unfortunately, truth and substance are set aside and emotional pleas are made in order to advance a certain cause. The opposition to this amendment is supported strongly. The opposition is strongly supported by thousands, millions of red-blooded Americans out there who are either producers or they are part of the processing of meat. They are running grocery stores in neighborhoods all over the country. They do not want this provision implemented until it can be studied further

and analyzed and done the right way. And again ultimately if this is implemented, the bills at the grocery store, there will be sticker shock in many of the grocery aisles out there as Americans wonder what happened; how did Congress implement such a libelous costly regulation so quickly without even taking the time to do so.

And let us also understand that any producer out there can now put labels on whatever they would like. There is an implication here somehow that there is some prohibition now on putting a label on any meat product. They can do that now today anytime they want. Also the implication somehow that this is going to threaten our food supply, I am delighted that many of the authorizers have stepped forward today in a bipartisan way to state clearly this is about marketing, this is not about any kind of food-safety issue.

This is, again, a 1-year prohibition on implementation or promulgation or developing of any regulations. So, again, the misinformation that has been presented that this is somehow an effort to kill this permanently is misguided. This appropriations bill simply runs for 1 year.

Finally, I would like to state very clearly that the Bush administration, the administration has put out a statement saying that the administration supports the committee's position on country-of- origin labeling for meat or meat products. So there is strong bipartisan support for our position on this issue. Everyone, again, from the chairman of the authorizing committee; the ranking member; the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus; the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) of the Congressional Black Caucus, again across the board the widespread support that we have on our side in taking a position I think is very clear.

And, again, if we would look at the substance in truth about what we are debating here, we would hope to defeat this amendment resoundingly.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and ask unanimous consent to control the 5 minutes in opposition.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I would thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) for making some excellent points in opposition to this amendment. He is absolutely correct.

Over $872 million is the figure that we are under last year's budget. We are $136 million under the budget request. I would ask the gentleman proposing the amendment, is this not enough? We are learning to tighten the belt. We have cut the budget. We are lowering spending on this bill and still trying to deal with the needs in this country, that this country has in the areas of agriculture. So I cannot more firmly state my opposition to this amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado and would respectfully ask him to withdraw the amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would just once again state my strong opposition to this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman raises some very legitimate points about the need for funding in this area. However, this amendment was presented to us at the 11th hour, and it is not even clear under the language of this amendment how this money would be administered. So we would be delighted to try to work with the gentleman down the road between here and conference to see if we can do something on this. However, at the 11th hour like this, when we are presented with an amendment, I must oppose it at this time.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we would be happy to have our staffs work together on that.

Again, just hearing about this amendment at this time, it is not realistic to say we are going to guarantee a solution, but I think that the history that we have on this subcommittee to try to work with Members to work through these problems is real, and we would be happy to do that.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is to strike a provision from the Conservation Operations account that prohibits the funds in this account from being used to pay for the salaries and expenses of personnel to provide technical assistance for several mandatory conservation programs.

This amendment is in keeping with an agreement that I made with the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), in hopes that we can ensure that there are adequate funds available for conservation technical assistance. I would point out that the 2002 Farm Bill included an increase of more than $17 billion for conservation programs, but I am committed to work with the chairman to try to come up with the solution to funding of conservation technical assistance.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentlewoman for bringing this matter to our attention. It is a very important issue. We recognize the needs of these institutions to be unique and deserving of additional support. The committee has included report language encouraging the Department to better assist the Land Grant Universities in the insular areas and provide us a report describing what steps the Department is currently taking to meet their unique needs.

I look forward to working with the gentlewoman and delegates to ensure that the needs of the Land Grant Universities in the insular areas are met the best way we possibly can.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on the pending amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) 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 yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the authorizing committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the distinguished ranking member of the authorizing committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the authorizing committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say that I greatly appreciate the points that the authorizers have made today in opposition to this amendment.

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 it be in order at any time for the Speaker, as though pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, to declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for further consideration of H.R. 2673, which shall proceed according to the following order:

No further amendment to the bill may be offered except pro forma amendments offered by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees for the purpose of debate and

An amendment by Ms. Kaptur regarding biofuels, which will be debatable for 20 minutes;

An amendment by Ms. Kaptur regarding APHIS;

An amendment by Ms. Kaptur regarding credit cards;

An amendment by Ms. Kaptur regarding the Website of the Department of Agriculture;

An amendment by Mr. Brown of Ohio regarding food safety, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes.

Each such amendment may be offered only by the Member designated in this request, or a designee, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

Except as specified, each such amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes, and debate on each amendment shall be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.

All points of order against each of the amendments shall be considered as reserved pending completion of the debate thereon; and each of the amendments may be withdrawn by its proponent after debate thereon.

At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 2673) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding. I would like to take this opportunity to engage in a colloquy with my good friend from Ohio, but first I would like to compliment the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) for the incredible work that he has done, once again, to put this bill together. He is again, as many have heard comments from both sides of the aisle today, one of the most respected and admired leaders in this House, and I am just proud to serve with him on the Committee on Appropriations.

The chairman has been a leader and a champion of funding for community health centers for many years now, and I appreciate the time he has given me on a regular basis to talk about the funding levels that are necessary to keep this wonderful program running. The chairman knows that the $122 million that is currently included in the bill is greatly appreciated. That would bring the fiscal year 2004 total to $1.627 billion.

However, there is great concern that this would not be enough to sustain the services at some health care centers, and that, in some cases, they could be forced to reduce services to existing patients as costs increase around the country. My purpose is simply to engage the chairman to ask for his consideration to continue working with us

to try to increase this number to the level of $225 million.

It is my understanding that Members of the other body are trying to work toward that goal; and if they are successful, we were hoping that we could also work in conference down the road to match that level. This would enable the program to serve 1.7 million additional patients, many of whom are uninsured. We all have examples from around the country from our congressional districts. In my case, health centers serve more than 28,000 people who would otherwise go without this care. We all have seen firsthand the good work that these great health centers are doing; and around the country, hundreds of thousands of Americans who would have no place else to turn are being served by these great people that work in these health centers.

I would just simply ask the chairman of the subcommittee that he would continue to work with us throughout this process to ensure that this program is provided an additional $225 million if at all possible in the final bill.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I thank the gentleman from Ohio. Again, I just want to reiterate my gratitude to the chairman of the subcommittee for advocating this program and for his help not only on this issue, but so many others in the bill.

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Obey

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, what a privilege to stand in the United States Capitol to honor the World Champion San Antonio Spurs. In life, it is not just how you win, but it is how you play the game.

America has seen that the Spurs are a team of character. There are no ball hogs, no billboard tattoos, no nose rings or show boats. It is a team that works like a well-oiled machine. No longer can anyone in the NBA say that nice guys finish last.

David Robinson is not just a basketball icon; he is known internationally as a great community servant. It is appropriate that the NBA renamed its community service award after David.

Tim Duncan, the Tower of Power. Those blocked shots in the final game will always be remembered as part of an all-time great performance, and the list goes on and on.

Tony Parker's trademark clutch tear-drop shots and the interviews he would do with the French media speaking French gave a new twist to the finals.

Bruce Bowen's defense and the 3-point bonanza in a critical game against the Lakers is something we are still talking about.

Steve Jackson's three pointers, and Malik Rose's intensity and willingness to bang hard under the basket at crucial times in the game, Manu Ginobili's ability to defy gravity and make those clutch shots and steal the ball at critical times. He became Charles Barkley's favorite player, and Charles loved yelling his name out, Manu Ginobili, during the beginning of the game and afterwards.

Then there is Steve Kerr. Boy, did he give the Spurs a boost with those heart-stopping three-point shots in the fourth quarter just when we needed them. This is Steve Kerr's sixth championship ring, and we congratulate him.

The rest of the guys all played vital roles just when they were needed, Speedy Claxton, Danny Ferry, Steve Smith, and Kevin Willis. And Coach Gregg Popovich now has two NBA titles with the Spurs. A lot of political bigshots could, frankly, take a lesson from Popovich. He always believes in doing what is right, the media be damned.

Congratulations to the owners, Peter and Juliana Holt, two friends and wonderful people who are so deserving. They also set an example for patience and doing what is right for the Spurs, and they continue to serve the community every day of their lives.

From all of us in the congressional delegation of San Antonio, thank you for making us proud. And the best news is next year the Spurs are expected to be even better.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express the deep admiration I share with each member of the Texas Delegation for Representative Larry Combest. It is with a heavy heart that I stand here today to send off my friend from West Texas. Larry and his lovely wife Sharon have truly made a difference to his constituents, the state of Texas and the nation.

While serving as Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Larry proved his true leadership during the deliberation of the 2002 Farm Bill. Through long, hard days and nights working tirelessly on the measure, Larry never lost sight of the true reason for the bill. The farmers and ranchers of this nation owe Larry a great debt of gratitude for his distinguished service. That being said, the true measure of Larry Combest may not be his astute knowledge of agriculture and politics, but the balance he has kept between his public life and his private life. It is apparent to anyone who knows Larry that his family has always been his top priority.

I commend Larry for his great service, and wish him the best as he and Sharon embark together on their next adventure in life.