Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005 -- (House of Representatives - July 13, 2004)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 710 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 4766.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. WEINER
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
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.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. WEINER:
Page 5, line 15, insert "(decreased by $19,667,000)" after the dollar amount.
Page 18, line 9, insert "(increased by $19,667,000)" after the 1st dollar amount.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to thank the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee for their work on this bill.
In this bill we are investing in the neighborhood of about $47 million to wipe out the boll weevil. It poses a threat to an important U.S. commodity. It poses a threat to a way of life to many people. In fact, at the same time we are dramatically reducing the funds necessary to wipe out the Asian long horn beetle, my friend here. The Asian long horn beetle has devastated trees in New York, Illinois and New Jersey and is showing a path that could spread to over half the trees in the United States.
There is a way that we can stop this. An eradication program was begun by APHIS 3 years ago funded by this Congress that has finally started to crest the expansion of this pest. Unfortunately, in the chairman's mark we underfund by a magnitude of about $20 million what APHIS says will be necessary to eradicate the threat.
The problem that we face here in this House is we run the risk of wasting a rather substantial investment of money that we have paid in the last 2 fiscal years to wipe out this insect. What this bug has done since 1996 has devastated trees throughout New York, and I know the old story about the tree growing in Brooklyn. In fact, there are thousands and thousands of trees that have been impacted already and without a steady investment of funds will continue to.
What we propose to do here is not to take the optimum amount of funding. According to the State of New York, it would take about $72 million a year for the next 5 years in order to wipe out this pest, but take the minimum amount that APHIS says they require, which is $30 million over the next several years, to eradicate this threat so it does not move any further.
Right now, Ground Zero for this problem is in the New York-New Jersey area; but we have seen it spring up in the center of the country in Illinois. We have also seen how difficult it is to get a handle on it. To be very honest with you, the only way they have found to get rid of this pest once it is in a tree is to chop down the tree and scrap it and to shred that tree to bits. We cannot risk over 47 percent of the trees in this country which, according to the Department of Agriculture, are susceptible to this threat. Now is the time to cut it off at the tentacles or whatever it has. Now is the time for us to continue our battle against this.
The last thing we should be doing, Mr. Chairman, is allowing the good work of the committee in the past which has invested money to wipe this out and then say, essentially, we will stop on a dime and revert to a place where we will try to hold this in check until we have more money. We have started on this path. The only responsible thing to do is to continue on this program which will require about $30 million a year.
My amendment provides an additional $19.6 million which would prevent this pest from spreading any further.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the point of order.
POINT OF ORDER
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) still insist on his point of order?
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.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. WEINER. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, am I right that there are two parts to the point of order? One, that we have not yet reached page 5 which my amendment strikes; and the second part is that it increases outlays; is that correct?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla).
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard on the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I am asking is the point of order, does it make two separate points? One being we have not reached the page and the other being that it does outlays? Just so I understand what I am responding to.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is that the amendment reaches ahead to a portion of the bill not yet read, and that a possible defense of that point of order is not available unless the amendment is both budget authority and outlay neutral.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, if I could be heard on the point of order. We are at the chapter of the bill. We are at page 5. We are at the relevant paragraph of the bill. That is a matter of fact. And as far as the outlays, this has previously been scored for another amendment, and I am making a 6 percent reduction, and we are waiting for word from CBO, which hopefully will be coming momentarily which will clarify the other point.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman wish to be heard further on his point of order?
Mr. WEINER. I think I have just about maximized my statement.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
Does the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) wish to be heard on the point of order?
Ms. KAPTUR. I wish to be heard on the point of order.
I wonder if the majority could share the CBO scoring with us. We do not have a report back, or at least it has not been referred to us in general.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to hear the ruling on the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
Ms. KAPTUR. Do I take it there is no CBO scoring that the majority is able to provide us with?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will rule on this point of order.
Mr. WEINER. May I be heard on the point of order?
If the ruling of the Chair is that we have not yet reached that point, will I be free to offer it again when the time is more propitious?
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I did not get an answer to my question. Mr. Chairman, I asked the majority whether they have the information on the CBO scoring. The minority does not have that report. If this is going to be a factor in the judgment of the Chair, we would appreciate the information.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is attempting to answer the gentleman from New York's (Mr. Weiner) question.
The first instruction is in order at this time in the reading. The second instruction touches a portion of the bill not yet read.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, so if you are required under the rule to have an offset, then obviously they are going to be at two different sections of the bill. How can you possibly offer them two places at once?
The CHAIRMAN. In order to avail itself of clause 2(f) of rule XXI, the offset must be budget authority neutral and outlay neutral, and the proponent of the amendment has the burden of proof that it is outlay neutral.
Mr. WEINER. If I can further be heard, so the point in the bill we are at is not in issue? It is only whether it is budget and outlay neutral?
The CHAIRMAN. That is correct. The Chair is prepared to rule.
Mr. WEINER. Does the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) want to be heard on this?
Ms. KAPTUR. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I was trying to get a clarification from the Chair. If the majority has objections based on CBO numbers, where are those numbers? They have not been provided to the minority. So we do not understand the nature of the objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair would like to cite page 822 of the House Rules and Manual. It says as follows: "The burden is on the proponent of an amendment to show that the amendment does not increase levels of budget authority or outlays within the meaning of clause 2(f)."
To be considered en bloc pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI, an amendment must not propose to increase the levels of budget authority or outlays in the bill. Because the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) proposes a net increase in the levels of outlays in the bill as argued by the chairman of the subcommittee on appropriations, it may not avail itself of clause 2(f) to address portions of the bill not yet read.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Weiner:
Page 5, line 15, insert "(decreased by $19,667,000)" after the dollar amount.
Page 18, line 9, insert "(increased by $18,000,000)" after the 1st dollar amount.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this amendment. We have not seen this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, I have already made my remarks; I want to try to facilitate as quickly as possible the amendment.
The justification is the same. The number has been changed to reflect what the CBO said would be necessary to take into account the change in the rate of outlays to accommodate the Budget Authority change that we are trying to make.
If the chairman would like for me to yield to him on my time, I would, in the interest of time, if he has any questions about the amendment. If not, in that case, let me just summarize again.
The number that we chose to increase by would provide what APHIS says is the necessary full funding to eradicate this pest, which is something that has ravaged New York City, ravaged Queens and Brooklyn, also has been spotted most troubling in Illinois and in New Jersey. We would be dramatically walking away from our commitment to wiping out this pest if we were to reduce to the chairman's mark.
We have to decide what we want to do. Do we want to take this cause that we have decided is necessary to be eradicated, we funded tens of millions of the dollars to eradicate it by a date certain? If we were to adopt the number in the chairman's mark, we would essentially be saying a lot of that money would be wasted because we would allow that pest to further infect trees not only in New York and New Jersey and Connecticut but apparently all throughout the Midwest.
I ask for a favorable consideration.
POINT OF ORDER
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) insist on his point of order?
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.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I have a fax here from the CBO scoring section that confirms that my amendment's outlays do not exceed the budget authority. As to the point of order, I still am not clear on. We are at page 5 where my amendment chooses to decrease funding.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.