Henry Bonilla

Mr. BONILLA

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

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in lukewarm opposition to this amendment. This concept sounds like a good one, and possibly there are some abuses that are occurring. All of us should be concerned about that. However, I have also got some concerns about finding the proper way to fix this problem. The FDA is not exactly the right solution. FDA prints a so-called ``Orange Book'' listing innovator drugs and the patents that protect them. FDA's role is purely administrative. The Agency does not evaluate the patents themselves. Ruling on patent rights is a job for the courts, not the FDA. FDA does not have the proper authority or expertise to evaluate patents. We have got a Patent Office for that. Taking $1 million from generic drug review to referee patent disputes seems to defeat the purpose. Why would the sponsor seek to increase drug review times? Again, I must oppose the amendment, reluctantly so, and ask my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentlewoman for finding these funds at the eleventh hour. Hopefully these funds will be put to good use, as the gentlewoman is pointing out. So I commend her good work on this amendment and would be delighted to support it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, and ask unanimous consent to control the time in opposition.

Mr. BONILLA. I continue to reserve the point of order. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire if the gentlewoman is going to withdraw her amendment?

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time. Mr. Chairman, there seems to be an annual debate on this amendment so I will make my remarks brief. We are going to rehash what the benefits of this are very quickly. I want to point out the positive aspects of the Market Access Program. Each year $90 million is spent out of the Commodity Credit Corporation on MAP to help initiate and expand sales of U.S. agricultural, fish, and forest products overseas. Rural American farmers and ranchers, as the primary suppliers of commodities, benefit from MAP. All regions of the country benefit from the program's employment and economic effects from expanded agricultural exports markets. In 2000, agricultural exports totalled nearly $51 billion and that generated almost three-quarters of a million jobs. About half a million jobs out of that total were also related to other areas like processing, packaging, storing and financing of exports. Mr. Chairman, agricultural exports are expected to increase by another $2 billion this year to $53 billion. More than 1 million Americans now have jobs that depend on U.S. agricultural exports. This program goes a long way toward making sure that we have these export markets. I strongly oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

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

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, yes.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the ranking member on the Committee on Agriculture, a hero to agriculture, and someone who is going to tie all this up in a little package for us at the conclusion of this debate.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, we only have one additional speaker, so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, what is the time remaining?

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg).

Mr. BONILLA. Well, let me again summarize it, and I do not want to put words in the gentleman's mouth, but clearly the gentleman does not oppose a program for example in his State that is a big line item in this bill, but is yet trying to remove this program from this bill. Let me point out some statistics, and perhaps the gentleman can identify with some hardships that exist currently for wool and mohair producers. Since 1993, 16,000 family farms and ranches have left the sheep industry. The U.S. breeding herd has dropped by over 20 percent. Lamb imports have increased over 50 percent, and it is currently 20 percent of the domestic market. U.S. wool production has dropped to record lows, and imports have increased by 11 percent. The Nation's largest wool textile company filed for bankruptcy. Wool prices in 2000 were the lowest in 30 years. We in Congress do the best we possibly can for whatever part of the agriculture industry that exists around the country that is suffering hardship. There is nothing more American and traditional in this country than to try to preserve family farms and ranches; and there are many, many programs in this bill that do just that, including the one I pointed out that was in the gentleman's home State as well, which he supports. All we are saying is whether we are talking about apples, corn, cotton, tobacco, wheat, soybeans or whatever, all of these are part of the American fabric. Wool and mohair producers are part of the American fabric that we do not want to see become extinct. So for that reason I stand in strong opposition to this amendment today. As a nation, we can no longer afford to arbitrarily attack agriculture because it has the fewest voices representing it. Less than 2% of the American population is involved with agriculture, yet we feed and clothe all of America and most of the world! What I find even more strange is that the amendment singles out a total of less than $40 million in much needed assistance to wool and mohair producers. Yet the sponsors have no problem with the rest of the $5.5 billion dollars that Congress just approved for corn, cotton, tobacco, wheat and soy bean producers. If they did, I assume they would try to kill that relief as well. Yet, those commodities have a much larger voice and support base in Congress so I guess we'll just go after the little guys. And they are small producers. . . . Twenty-one percent of the 12,825 payments went to sheep ranchers in the Navajo Nation. I'm sure that the gentleman would not even begin to insinuate that the Navajo people are wealthy corporate ranchers. This amendment would hit them harder than any other group of individuals. Mr. Chairman . . ., many of the statistics the gentleman is using do not even relate to the emergency payments they are trying to stop. They refer to the old wool program which ended in 1995. Mr. Chairman . . ., I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this amendment, it's the wrong amendment, the wrong time and the wrong place. Oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BONILLA. Well, the program was proposed by one of the gentleman's colleagues from New York, and that is why I am asking a question. It is a hardship that exists on apple growers in New York and in other parts of the country that is in this bill. It is not an emergency line item either. I am just trying to draw the comparison that hardships exist in different parts of the country and it is interesting that the gentleman does not oppose the $150 million apple line item in here, and there was money for apple producers last year as well. So there are continuing programs on occasion that do help producers that are doing all they can to pay their bills back home that are not part of permanent law. The Wool Act, as the gentleman knows, was eliminated several years ago, I believe it was 6 years ago, and is not in permanent law. The program that the gentleman is trying to remove from the bill today is one that is not permanent law either. We are just trying to assist producers out there now that have gone through some very difficult times.

Mr. BONILLA. So the short answer would be no, the gentleman does not oppose the apple money in the bill, and it is not a designation of an emergency line item.

Mr. BONILLA. Reclaiming my time for another question, does the gentleman also oppose the apple program to deal with the hardships that apple producers are currently facing in the State of New York? Does the gentleman also oppose that?

Mr. BONILLA. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I would first like to ask my colleague from New York if he would answer a question. Has the gentleman ever visited a wool house or visited any of the areas where the sheep and goat raisers exist?

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