Henry Bonilla

Mr. BONILLA

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. BONILLA. 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.

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

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. BONILLA. 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. BONILLA. 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. BONILLA. I would suggest to the gentleman that he consult with the ranking member. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. BONILLA. 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.

Mr. BONILLA. And any amendments thereto.

Mr. BONILLA. And any second degree amendments.

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

Mr. BONILLA. The unanimous consent request simply applies to this amendment.

Mr. BONILLA. No.

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

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my unanimous consent request.

Mr. BONILLA. 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. BONILLA. 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.

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

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