Henry Bonilla

Mr. BONILLA

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

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

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

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

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. 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. BONILLA

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

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. BONILLA. Yes, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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