Henry Bonilla

Mr. BONILLA

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

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

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

Mr. BONILLA. At this time I do not.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, once again, just to comment on how many prudent recommendations were made to put this bill together and it has been a very good product that we have come to the floor with today, and we hope that all Members would support it without any amendments.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that there is currently one vacancy on the National Organic Standards Board, and I understand the gentleman is very concerned about this issue and USDA is seeking nominations for the position. There was some advertisement that went out to these positions in the spring time. The vacancy closes July 14, and it will be filled. So the way we see the process going, that is, the gentleman's issues are being addressed, we see this as a non-issue, and we would hope that the gentleman would withdraw the amendment. If there is some opposition to the way the process works, we can understand that; but the process is moving forward and the board positions will be filled in a timely manner according to our information.

Mr. BONILLA. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. BONILLA. I cannot advocate or endorse a particular group's choice for the position. That is not my role.

Mr. BONILLA. I would be happy to work with the gentleman on this; but, of course, I cannot stand here and guarantee the outcome.

Mr. BONILLA. I would be happy to do that. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the gentleman. There have been many unrelated issues that we have worked on together in the past, and we would be happy to do that.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman raises a very good issue that deserves attention, but we have done our absolute best to fund eradication and control of plant pests in the bill before you today that we are presenting. The overall total for plant pests is $115 million, which is $16 million over last year's level. The Asian longhorned beetle is at the President's request of $20 million; the glassy winged sharpshooter is at $24 million; emerald ash borer, $20 million, more than doubling last year's level of $8 million; citrus response is $39 million; sudden oak death, doubled from last year to $6 million; and the list goes on and on. Eradication and control of these pests is also supported by emergency funding from the Commodity Credit Corporation at the discretion of the Secretary. The emerald ash borer control just received $7.5 million from CCC last month. As for the offset of this amendment, it is completely irresponsible to cut funding to farmers, rural areas and conservation programs for this gentleman's purpose. I would imagine that it would not just be me, but there would be Members from all across America that are sensitive to the cuts that are being proposed in this amendment. It is not just about one district. This is about national priorities. If the gentleman wishes to look in his own district for offsets, New York City benefits greatly from the programs funded by this bill. I heard from you and others that funding for the Commodity Supplemental Fielding Program was a critical need. This bill includes $118 million for that program, which the President attempted to zero out. Of that amount, New York City receives $7.8 million and about 30,000 people receive food as a result. Would the gentleman propose that funding for that program be cut to fund beetle eradication since there is a parochial interest in taking money from one place and putting it in another? The gentleman could also propose cuts in funding for WIC, the feeding program that we all care about and try to take care of every year for at-risk women and children, to fund this priority. This bill before us today includes over $5 billion of WIC funding. New York receives about $200 million of that funding every year for eligible women, infants and children. Why are beetles more important? What is the priority? The point is that there are a lot of choices that you have to make in putting a bill like this together, and we made the choices that we feel are best for this country and have been fair to every State. So I would ask Members to oppose the amendment when it comes for a moment.

Mr. BONILLA. If the gentleman will yield, I appreciate the gentleman's inquiry. The bill ensures that previously appropriated funds for planning and design of a new facility will continue to be available. This reprogramming is not intended to signify that construction funds are no longer needed. Let me also add that I appreciate the gentleman's remarks on my interest in the industry. I have enjoyed my touring of the gentleman's region of California and also in Washington and would look forward at some point to returning. I plan to continue supporting the industry for as long as I am here.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment. The amendment proposes to cut funding for computers and information technology for NRCS and to add funding for the Rural Community programs. The gentleman did not include this funding level as a priority to the subcommittee prior to this bill coming to the floor. The bill provides over $49 million for the Rural Community programs, which is an increase of $6 million over the President's request. We had to make some tough decisions within our funding allocation, and I do not believe we should cut the Natural Resources Conservation Service to provide an additional increase for the Rural Community programs. So we have dealt with this issue in the committee, and we feel like we have done the best we can. Therefore, I rise to oppose this amendment.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The amendment proposes to increase the organic transitions program by over $3 million. This represents, and I ask for all of my colleagues to get this, a 175 percent increase over the current funding level. This amendment is not even reasonable. We struggle every day when we put a bill like this together to squeeze every last penny that we can to be fiscally responsible and to take care of requests that Members have. So to come to the floor with an amendment that has a 175 percent increase is unreasonable. It is not good government. I would urge Members to vote ``no.'' If this amendment even passes with this funding level, it would be unsustainable in conference. I do not understand, what is the point?

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, first let me say, I want to commend Mr. Kennedy for his hard work on this issue. He is a great Member of the House and is destined and on his way to doing greater things for the State of Minnesota. However, I reluctantly rise to oppose the amendment, and I think if the gentleman will listen to my reasons, he will understand why. Mr. Chairman, it is not that we are against the issue; it is that there is no place to put the money that the gentleman is proposing. The gentleman does accurately point out that the Senate provided funding for this program in fiscal year 2006, and we agreed to fund this in the conference. The Senate-passed bill had $1 million for this program, and we agreed to $500,000. However, adding more money to this program will have zero effect. This is a brand new program. The USDA is only currently deciding how to set this program up because they do not run a student loan repayment program. The department has coordinated a working group, and they are only now reviewing a draft management proposal. USDA wants to ensure that this program is thought out. Rules and regulations will have to be drafted and finalized, and the USDA estimates it is going to be about 18 months before this program is in place. My point is fiscal year 2007 will have passed before this program is in place. We have a hard enough time keeping ongoing programs adequately funded. I know the gentleman appreciates that. So, again, just to emphasize, even if I stood up here and agreed to the gentleman's amendment, the money would go into limbo and would not be used for what the gentleman wants it to be used for. I would urge the gentleman to withdraw his amendment because we can work together to make sure that this thing works properly. This is the fiscal year 2007 appropriations bill for agriculture, and there is absolutely nothing that they can do with this money for at least 18 months. So it is not a prudent way to proceed.

Mr. BONILLA. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. BONILLA. Yes, because until they can develop the rules, regulations and how it is going to work, there is nothing they can spend money the money on.

Mr. BONILLA. Absolutely.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, it is with great reluctance I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment, because the gentleman is such a distinguished Member. But we have funded the bovine TB program at $16.7 million, the same as the President's request. That is $1.8 million over the current level. So it is not like we haven't tried to address this issue. We have challenges in fighting TB, but we feel like the resources provided can meet those challenges for now. If indemnity funds are exhausted in the current year, the Secretary can then access emergency funds. So we do feel that this issue that the gentleman is concerned about, the concerns could be addressed. We certainly would be willing to work with the Department and the gentleman if there is a greater need that we currently don't foresee. The gentleman also proposes to cut funds for the National Agriculture Statistics Service. Those funds are for the purposes of agriculture and agriculture estimates. The census of agriculture does have an increase this year because it is a 5-year cycle and has up and down years. We are headed up to a census. If you cut agricultural estimates, you decrease the USDA's ability to provide quality agriculture data. That data affects cash receipts to America's farms and ranches and exceeds $200 billion annually. The estimates must be precise; for example, a 1 cent change in the average corn price can result in the change of more than $110 million in counter-cyclical payments. That is why I oppose the amendment. I know the gentleman can see my points very clearly and also the earlier point I made that it is not like we are not trying to address the gentleman's concerns and feel like, again, that we have increased this line item. There is additional money available, if there is a problem that emerges, so we are on your side, would be my quote to the gentleman.

Mr. BONILLA. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would further emphasize CCC funds could be used if they are needed to address this. So we feel like, again, we are doing all we can to address this issue at this time. That is why I am opposing the amendment.

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

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill, and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment changes the application of existing law. I request a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is presenting a good amendment, and I would just like to inform the gentleman we would be happy to accept the gentleman's amendment if he would like to move it to a vote.