Henry Bonilla

Mr. BONILLA

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

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, we have reviewed the amendment and would be happy to accept it. If the gentleman would like to submit his remarks for the Record, we can accept the amendment and move on.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment. And I want to explain to the gentleman from Ohio why, because I know he has got a serious concern here. Let me assure the gentleman that there is not a Member in this House of Representatives that is not concerned about BSE. But sometimes some fringe groups in this country and big media start talking about the sky is falling, and you have got to do this, that or the other to check our beef supply, but for the most part, I am proud of what this country has done to monitor BSE. I mean, nobody, most people that serve in the House have children; they have families, and no one wants to expose anyone to anything dangerous to eat. USDA has had an enhanced surveillance program going since the spring of 2004, they have tested 700,000 cattle. They have had two positive tests. USDA is evaluating data from the enhanced surveillance program to design a maintenance surveillance program. The data and design are being peer reviewed by an outside group who will report findings within a month. Under any surveillance program, the U.S. will continue to test 100 percent of animals that have signs of a central nervous system disorder. Any BSE program USDA adopts will meet or exceed international standards. Again, to compare our standards to another country that has a minimal industry versus what we have in this country is absolutely not fair and comparing apples to oranges. No country tests 100 percent of its cattle. The budget request covers 40,000 tests per year. However, if the peer review panel or USDA determine that more than 40,000 are needed, the Secretary has the ability to access additional funds. I can assure you that if more tests need to be done to affirm the safety of the food supply, they will be done. Again, I can assure the gentleman that I have no less concern about this issue than he does. And I understand, I have read the gentleman's amendment. It is a very short amendment. It is going to take money out of a line item, put it back into a line item in the appropriations bill. Mr. Chairman, I can assure the gentleman that the points have been made. This is, again, not going to change one dollar in the bill. So now that we have had this discussion, maybe the gentleman would consider withdrawing the amendment unless he has an additional comment that he would like to make. I would yield for a response.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's position, because I know he brings a great deal of sincerity to the floor when he has an amendment. In closing, I would just comment on how no matter what business you have that sells beef to the public, whether it is a fast food chain or a single restaurant, doesn't the gentleman understand that that industry in itself, that the gentleman mentioned, would do everything humanly possible to keep the beef supply safe? So I know the gentleman is not making insinuations beyond what he is saying today. But there are a lot of groups out there that somehow try to scare the American people into thinking that this is not happening. But I can assure the gentleman, again, that there is no less concern on this side of the aisle about this issue than he has.

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

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I would like to commend the gentleman from Oklahoma for his work on this issue. When a gentleman who works as hard and as sincerely as Mr. Lucas does on this issue, it is just unconscionable that he cannot get the response that he needs. This is a gentleman who does not ask for too much. He tries to be fair about the request that he has from the Department. I support the gentleman's amendment with enthusiasm. There is also, as an aside from the issues that he has addressed, it has been brought to my attention that there may be some inappropriate activity that has been conducted out of this office. We are not going to name names here, but there is a buddy who has the nickname by the name of ``chief'' or something like that that has been lobbying on behalf of their causes which is an unethical, illegal activity that has been conducted out of this office. We need to get to the bottom of this as well as trying to address the gentleman from Oklahoma's issue. The gentleman brings a good amendment forward, and we are prepared to vote ``aye'' on it.

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

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

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend Mr. Kingston for his work on this issue. This is an issue that we have worked very closely with the authorizers on to try to fix this program because it expired, as the gentleman said. Mr. Kingston has been a real leader, as has Senator Chambliss on the other side of the Capitol, in trying to address this issue. I am very grateful the gentleman came to the floor today to address the concerns, because they needed to be exposed rather than just rule on the technicality that was before us. The gentleman understood that the peanut issue was subject to a point of order and nonetheless fought the good fight to the very end. So I would just like to commend the gentleman for his work in this area.

Mr. BONILLA. I would be happy to yield to my good friend from Alabama.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks and, in closing, there are oftentimes issues like this that come before us that as appropriators you never know what is around the next corner with legislation that is being put in our lap that has a profound impact above and beyond dollar figures that we debate on every day in our committee. So, again, I realize and all of us realize this is a very serious issue that needs to be addressed.

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 H.R. 5384, and that I might include tabular material on the same.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 5384 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 830, notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no further amendment to the bill may be offered except: Pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees for the purpose of debate; An amendment by Mr. Blumenauer regarding funding limitations for sugar loan rates, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes; An amendment by Ms. Slaughter regarding funding for Center For Veterinary Medicine; An amendment or amendments by Mr. Bonilla regarding funding levels; An amendment by Mr. Latham regarding section 741 of the bill; An amendment by Mr. Hefley regarding an across-the-board reduction; An amendment by Mr. Tiahrt regarding funding limitation on competitiveness; An amendment by Mr. Paul regarding funding limitation on National Animal Identification System; An amendment by Mr. King of Iowa regarding submission of a report on the National Animal Identification System and certain pilot projects; An amendment by Mr. Schwarz of Michigan regarding emerald ash borer; An amendment by Mr. Sweeney regarding a funding limitation on examination, inspection, and processing of horses; An amendment by Mr. Weiner regarding payments to certain cotton and rice producers; An amendment by Mr. Carter regarding funding for program integrity activities in Federal Crop Insurance program; An amendment by Mr. Chabot regarding a funding limitation on the MAP program; An amendment by Mr. Lucas regarding funding for conservation technical assistance programs; An amendment by Mr. Gutknecht regarding funding limitation on section 720 of this bill; An amendment by Mr. Baca regarding funding limitation on operational changes to the Food Stamp program; An amendment by Mr. Gerlach regarding funding limitation on section 728 of the bill; An amendment by Mr. Reichert regarding funding limitation on certain milk producer handlers; An amendment by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey regarding Federal employee attendance at overseas conferences; An amendment by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey on food stamp program in contravention of the INA; An amendment by Mr. Engel regarding funding limitation on alternative fuel vehicles; An amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas regarding claims processing on Pigford v. Glickman case; An amendment by Mr. King of Iowa regarding the Livestock Identification and Marketing Act; An amendment by Mr. Boren regarding funding limitation on the transfer of activities from Oklahoma; An amendment by Mr. Gordon regarding energy standards for Federal buildings; An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation on dairy education in Iowa; An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation on fruit and vegetable market analysis in Arizona and Missouri; An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding for Food Marketing Policy Center in Connecticut; An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation for greenhouse nurseries in Ohio; An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation for aquaculture in Ohio; An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation for hydroponic tomato production in Ohio; An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation for wood utilization in Oregon, Mississippi, North Carolina, Minnesota, Maine, Michigan, Idaho, Tennessee, Arkansas, and West Virginia; An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation for the National Grape and Wine Initiative in California; An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation for income enhancement demonstration in Ohio; An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation for Appalachian Horticulture Research in Mississippi; An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation for the Competitiveness of Agriculture Products in Washington; An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation for Value- Added Product Development for Agriculture resources in Montana. Each such amendment may be offered only by the Member named in this request or a designee, or by the Member who caused it to be printed in the Record or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to amendment except that the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations and the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate; and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. Except as otherwise specified, each amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. An amendment shall be considered to fit the description stated in this request if it addresses in whole or in part the object described.

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

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I could not agree with the gentleman more. The gentleman knows that I have tried to work through this bill as expeditiously as possible. I would concur that we try to expedite this process and minimize the speeches that could be associated with these amendments.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Hopefully, this will set an example for dealing with the remaining amendments. We have cleared this amendment that deals with putting money back into the EQIP program. We have cleared it with the minority, and I ask for an ``aye'' vote. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. We would be happy to accept the amendment. If the gentleman would like to submit his remarks for the Record, we can vote on this and move on, again with favorable support for the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, we have worked on this language, and I have corrected some problems we had with it. And we are happy to accept the language if the gentleman will accept our support for this.

Mr. BONILLA. Let me just first compliment the gentleman from Texas for his hard work on this issue. This school should erect a statue in his honor for all of the effort that he has put in this tirelessly for the last few weeks. The gentleman is correct. This has been a good program in years past, but it was not an authorized program this time around. And we have tried to work with the gentleman to try to figure out a solution to this. Mr. Chairman, I am telling the gentleman that we would be happy to accept the amendment. I know that it has been an ordeal to get the language just right so we could move forward with this issue. I want to let the gentleman know that we would be happy to continue to work with him on this.

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

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

Mr. BONILLA. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman knows absolutely we will continue to try to work with the gentleman. I know we have had some differences on this issue, but no one has worked harder on this issue in the last few weeks and months than the gentleman from Iowa. I have said to the gentleman privately, and I will now say publicly, that the people in Iowa, not just in the gentleman's district, that the people in the State should canonize the gentleman, Mr. Latham, for his hard work on a long list of issues that he has worked on in this subcommittee for many years now. There are some years as the gentleman knows where he consistently is more successful on a long list of issues that is about twice as long. I am the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from Iowa usually gets double of his requests in the bill. That is how hard he works, and that is how effective he is. So whether you win or lose on this issue in the end, I would say to the gentleman from Iowa that the people on both sides of this issue should realize that you doing everything possible and we certainly will continue to work with the gentleman from Iowa.