H.Amdt. 300House111th Congress (2009-2011)
An amendment numbered 6 printed in part E of House Report 111-191 to prohibit certain funds in the bill from being used for the National Biodiversity Conservation Strategy project, Kiski Basin, PA and reduces funds under the heading "Agricultural Research Service--Salaries and Expenses" by the amount that was to have been spent on the National Biodiversity Conservation Strategy project, Kiski Basin, PA.
Sponsored by 
Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX)
Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX)Submitted July 8, 2009
Description
Amendment sought to prohibit funds in the bill from being used for the National Biodiversity Conservation Strategy project, Kiski Basin, PA, and sought to reduce funding under the heading "Agricultural Research Service--Salaries and Expenses" by the amount that was to have been spent on the National Biodiversity Conservation Strategy project, Kiski Basin, PA.
Legislative Activity
Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action
Floor
Latest Action
House amendment not agreed to: On agreeing to the Hensarling amendment (A008) Failed by recorded vote: 122 - 307 (Roll no. 503).(consideration: CR H7847-7848; text: CR H7847)
July 9, 2009 • 11:34 AM
View full timeline
Floor
House amendment not agreed to: On agreeing to the Hensarling amendment (A008) Failed by recorded vote: 122 - 307 (Roll no. 503).(consideration: CR H7847-7848; text: CR H7847)
July 9, 2009 • 11:34 AM
Floor
Roll call votes on amendments in House
July 9, 2009 • 11:34 AM
Not Used
Amendment failed in Committee of the Whole
July 9, 2009 • 11:34 AM
Floor
On agreeing to the Hensarling amendment (A008) Failed by recorded vote: 122 - 307 (Roll no. 503). (consideration: CR H7847-7848; text: CR H7847)
July 9, 2009 • 11:34 AM
Floor
House amendment offered
July 8, 2009
Not Used
House amendment offered/reported by : Amendment (A008) offered by Mr. Hensarling.(consideration: CR H7820-7821; text: CR H7820)
July 8, 2009 • 9:18 PM
Floor
Amendment (A008) offered by Mr. Hensarling. (consideration: CR H7820-7821; text: CR H7820)
July 8, 2009 • 9:18 PM
Votes
1 roll call on this amendment
Text
Offered
Part B Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part B amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Garrett of New
Jersey:
Page 23, line 5, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
Page 29, line 7, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 609, the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would add $5
million to the Natural Resources Conservation Service's Conservation
Operations Account and subtract $5 million from the Farm Service Agency
salaries.
More than 80 percent of the funds under the NRCS Conservation
Operations Account provide technical support to help farmers and other
landowners conserve and protect their land and resources. Currently,
there is a significant backlog of requests for conservation assistance,
and many farmers are turned away by the USDA when they apply to
participate in conservation programs due to insufficient funding.
New Jersey, my home State, is one of the most densely populated
States in the country, and more and more scarce land disappears every
day. Our farmers are eager to share in the cost of protecting our
environment, and we must ensure that they have the knowledge and the
ability to do so in the appropriate manner.
So I would like to commend the chairwoman and the ranking member for
their work in attempting to address this important issue. And while I
do support very strongly the Farm Service Agency, their salaries and
their expense account, under this bill it is slated for a $92 million
increase, and with so many of our Nation's farmers struggling to
conserve their land and with development rapidly eating up our
cherished resources, I believe this is a priority.
I will close with this: More than 19 years ago, when I first ran for
public office in my State, I believed we were not doing enough to
preserve our open space and our farmlands. I believe that this
amendment continues to move us now in the right way and towards that
goal. I ask all of my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, though I plan to support the amendment, I
ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Connecticut is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Ms. DeLAURO. This amendment increases the funding for the Natural
Resources Conservation Service Account by $5 million by decreasing the
Farm Service Agency salaries and expenses.
While I am very supportive of the efforts of this amendment with
regard to technical support and of easing the backlog, I must say that
I do not think it is a good offset, but we did not write the language,
and we will fix the offset in conference.
With that, I urge the adoption of the amendment and ask for a ``yes''
vote on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I appreciate that. I just have a question
while we're on the floor, just for my edification. Are there other
areas that you would suggest now where the offset should come from?
Ms. DeLAURO. Well, what I would like to do is to see what the best
opportunities are, but I have indicated my support for the amendment.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I understand. This is just for my
edification.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
state mediation grants
For grants pursuant to section 502(b) of the Agricultural
Credit Act of 1987, as amended (7 U.S.C. 5101-5106),
$4,000,000.
grassroots source water protection program
For necessary expenses to carry out wellhead or
groundwater protection activities under section 1240O of the
Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839bb-2), $5,000,000,
to remain available until expended.
dairy indemnity program
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses involved in making indemnity
payments to dairy farmers and manufacturers of dairy products
under a dairy indemnity program, such sums as may be
necessary, to remain available until expended: Provided, That
such program is carried out by the Secretary in the same
manner as the dairy indemnity program described in the
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law
106-387, 114 Stat. 1549A-12).
agricultural credit insurance fund program account
(including transfers of funds)
For gross obligations for the principal amount of direct
and guaranteed farm ownership (7 U.S.C. 1922 et seq.) and
operating (7 U.S.C. 1941 et seq.) loans, Indian tribe land
acquisition loans (25 U.S.C. 488), boll weevil loans (7
U.S.C. 1989), direct and guaranteed conservation loans (7
U.S.C. 1924 et seq.), and Indian highly fractionated land
loans (25 U.S.C. 488), to be available from funds in the
Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund, as follows: farm
ownership loans, $1,892,990,000, of which $1,500,000,000
shall be for unsubsidized guaranteed loans and $392,990,000
shall be for direct loans; operating loans, $1,994,467,000,
of which $1,150,000,000 shall be for unsubsidized guaranteed
loans, $144,467,000 shall be for subsidized guaranteed loans
and $700,000,000 shall be for direct loans; Indian tribe land
acquisition loans, $3,940,000; conservation loans,
$150,000,000, of which $75,000,000 shall be for guaranteed
loans and $75,000,000 shall be for direct loans; Indian
highly fractionated land loans, $10,000,000; and for boll
weevil eradication program loans, $100,000,000: Provided,
That the Secretary shall deem the pink bollworm to be a boll
weevil for the purpose of boll weevil eradication program
loans.
For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, including the
cost of modifying loans as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as follows: farm ownership
loans, $21,584,000, of which $5,550,000 shall be for
unsubsidized guaranteed loans, and $16,034,000 shall be for
direct loans; operating loans, $80,402,000, of which
$26,910,000 shall be for unsubsidized guaranteed loans,
$20,312,000 shall be for subsidized guaranteed loans, and
$33,180,000 shall be for direct loans; conservation loans,
$1,343,000, of which $278,000 shall be for guaranteed loans,
and $1,065,000 shall be for direct loans; and Indian highly
fractionated land loans, $793,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $326,093,000, of
which $318,173,000 shall be transferred to and merged with
the appropriation for ``Farm Service Agency, Salaries and
Expenses''.
Funds appropriated by this Act to the Agricultural Credit
Insurance Program Account for farm ownership, operating and
conservation direct loans and guaranteed loans may be
transferred among these programs: Provided, That the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress are
notified at least 15 days in advance of any transfer.
Risk Management Agency
For necessary expenses of the Risk Management Agency,
$80,325,000: Provided, That the funds made available under
section 522(e) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C.
1522(e)) may be used for the Common Information Management
System: Provided further, That not to exceed $1,000 shall be
available for official reception and representation expenses,
as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1506(i).
CORPORATIONS
The following corporations and agencies are hereby
authorized to make expenditures, within the limits of funds
and borrowing authority available to each such corporation or
agency and in accord with law, and to make contracts and
commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as
provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control
Act as may be necessary in carrying out the programs set
forth in the budget for the current fiscal year for such
corporation or agency, except as hereinafter provided.
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund
For payments as authorized by section 516 of the Federal
Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1516), such sums as may be
necessary, to remain available until expended.
Commodity Credit Corporation Fund
reimbursement for net realized losses
(including transfers of funds)
For the current fiscal year, such sums as may be necessary
to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for net
realized losses sustained, but not previously reimbursed,
pursuant to section 2 of the Act of August 17, 1961 (15
U.S.C. 713a-11): Provided, That of the funds available to the
Commodity Credit Corporation under section 11
[[Page H7812]]
of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C.
714i) for the conduct of its business with the Foreign
Agricultural Service, up to $5,000,000 may be transferred to
and used by the Foreign Agricultural Service for information
resource management activities of the Foreign Agricultural
Service that are not related to Commodity Credit Corporation
business.
hazardous waste management
(limitation on expenses)
For the current fiscal year, the Commodity Credit
Corporation shall not expend more than $5,000,000 for site
investigation and cleanup expenses, and operations and
maintenance expenses to comply with the requirement of
section 107(g) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9607(g)), and
section 6001 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(42 U.S.C. 6961).
TITLE II
CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Under Secretary
for Natural Resources and Environment, $774,000.
Natural Resources Conservation Service
conservation operations
For necessary expenses for carrying out the provisions of
the Act of April 27, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 590a-f), including
preparation of conservation plans and establishment of
measures to conserve soil and water (including farm
irrigation and land drainage and such special measures for
soil and water management as may be necessary to prevent
floods and the siltation of reservoirs and to control
agricultural related pollutants); operation of conservation
plant materials centers; classification and mapping of soil;
dissemination of information; acquisition of lands, water,
and interests therein for use in the plant materials program
by donation, exchange, or purchase at a nominal cost not to
exceed $100 pursuant to the Act of August 3, 1956 (7 U.S.C.
428a); purchase and erection or alteration or improvement of
permanent and temporary buildings; and operation and
maintenance of aircraft, $869,397,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2011: Provided, That appropriations
hereunder shall be available pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2250 for
construction and improvement of buildings and public
improvements at plant materials centers, except that the cost
of alterations and improvements to other buildings and other
public improvements shall not exceed $250,000: Provided
further, That when buildings or other structures are erected
on non-Federal land, that the right to use such land is
obtained as provided in 7 U.S.C. 2250a.
watershed and flood prevention operations
For necessary expenses to carry out preventive measures,
including but not limited to research, engineering
operations, methods of cultivation, the growing of
vegetation, rehabilitation of existing works and changes in
use of land, in accordance with the Watershed Protection and
Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1001-1005 and 1007-1009), the
provisions of the Act of April 27, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 590a-f),
and in accordance with the provisions of laws relating to the
activities of the Department, $20,000,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That not to exceed
$12,000,000 of this appropriation shall be available for
technical assistance.
watershed rehabilitation program
For necessary expenses to carry out rehabilitation of
structural measures, in accordance with section 14 of the
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C.
1012), and in accordance with the provisions of laws relating
to the activities of the Department, $40,161,000, to remain
available until expended.
resource conservation and development
For necessary expenses in planning and carrying out
projects for resource conservation and development and for
sound land use pursuant to the provisions of sections 31 and
32 of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (7 U.S.C. 1010-1011;
76 Stat. 607); the Act of April 27, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 590a-f);
and subtitle H of title XV of the Agriculture and Food Act of
1981 (16 U.S.C. 3451-3461), $50,730,000: Provided, That not
to exceed $3,073,000 shall be available for national
headquarters activities.
TITLE III
RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Under Secretary
for Rural Development, $660,000.
Rural Development Salaries and Expenses
(including transfers of funds)
For necessary expenses for carrying out the administration
and implementation of programs in the Rural Development
mission area, including activities with institutions
concerning the development and operation of agricultural
cooperatives; and for cooperative agreements; $195,987,000:
Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law,
funds appropriated under this section may be used for
advertising and promotional activities that support the Rural
Development mission area: Provided further, That not more
than $10,000 may be expended to provide modest nonmonetary
awards to non-USDA employees: Provided further, That any
balances available from prior years for the Rural Utilities
Service, Rural Housing Service, and the Rural Business-
Cooperative Service salaries and expenses accounts shall be
transferred to and merged with this appropriation.
Rural Housing Service
rural housing insurance fund program account
(including transfers of funds)
For gross obligations for the principal amount of direct
and guaranteed loans as authorized by title V of the Housing
Act of 1949, to be available from funds in the rural housing
insurance fund, as follows: $7,325,932,000 for loans to
section 502 borrowers, of which $1,121,488,000 shall be for
direct loans, and of which $6,204,444,000 shall be for
unsubsidized guaranteed loans; $34,412,000 for section 504
housing repair loans; $80,000,000 for section 515 rental
housing; $129,090,000 for section 538 guaranteed multi-family
housing loans; $5,045,000 for section 524 site loans;
$11,448,000 for credit sales of acquired property, of which
up to $1,448,000 may be for multi-family credit sales; and
$4,970,000 for section 523 self-help housing land development
loans.
For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, including the
cost of modifying loans, as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as follows: section 502
loans, $130,334,000, of which $40,710,000 shall be for direct
loans, and of which $89,624,000, to remain available until
expended, shall be for unsubsidized guaranteed loans; section
504 housing repair loans, $4,422,000; repair, rehabilitation,
and new construction of section 515 rental housing,
$21,792,000; section 538 multi-family housing guaranteed
loans, $1,485,000; and credit sales of acquired property,
$556,000: Provided, That of the total amount appropriated in
this paragraph, $2,500,000 shall be available through June
30, 2010, for authorized empowerment zones and enterprise
communities and communities designated by the Secretary of
Agriculture as Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones:
Provided further, That section 538 multi-family housing
guaranteed loans funded pursuant to this paragraph shall not
be subject to a guarantee fee and the interest on such loans
may not be subsidized: Provided further, That any balances
for a demonstration program for the preservation and
revitalization of the section 515 multi-family rental housing
properties as authorized by Public Law 109-97 and Public Law
110-5 shall be transferred to and merged with the ``Rural
Housing Service, Multi-family Housing Revitalization Program
Account''.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $468,593,000
shall be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for
``Rural Development, Salaries and Expenses''.
rental assistance program
For rental assistance agreements entered into or renewed
pursuant to the authority under section 521(a)(2) or
agreements entered into in lieu of debt forgiveness or
payments for eligible households as authorized by section
502(c)(5)(D) of the Housing Act of 1949, $980,000,000; and,
in addition, such sums as may be necessary, as authorized by
section 521(c) of the Act, to liquidate debt incurred prior
to fiscal year 1992 to carry out the rental assistance
program under section 521(a)(2) of the Act: Provided, That of
this amount, up to $5,958,000 shall be available for debt
forgiveness or payments for eligible households as authorized
by section 502(c)(5)(D) of the Act, and not to exceed $50,000
per project for advances to nonprofit organizations or public
agencies to cover direct costs (other than purchase price)
incurred in purchasing projects pursuant to section
502(c)(5)(C) of the Act: Provided further, That of this
amount not less than $2,030,000 is available for newly
constructed units financed by section 515 of the Housing Act
of 1949, and not less than $3,400,000 is for newly
constructed units financed under sections 514 and 516 of the
Housing Act of 1949: Provided further, That rental assistance
agreements entered into or renewed during the current fiscal
year shall be funded for a one-year period: Provided further,
That any unexpended balances remaining at the end of such
one-year agreements may be transferred and used for the
purposes of any debt reduction; maintenance, repair, or
rehabilitation of any existing projects; preservation; and
rental assistance activities authorized under title V of the
Act: Provided further, That rental assistance provided under
agreements entered into prior to fiscal year 2010 for a farm
labor multi-family housing project financed under section 514
or 516 of the Act may not be recaptured for use in another
project until such assistance has remained unused for a
period of 12 consecutive months, if such project has a
waiting list of tenants seeking such assistance or the
project has rental assistance eligible tenants who are not
receiving such assistance: Provided further, That such
recaptured rental assistance shall, to the extent
practicable, be applied to another farm labor multi-family
housing project financed under section 514 or 516 of the Act.
multi-family housing revitalization program account
For the rural housing voucher program as authorized under
section 542 of the Housing Act of 1949, but notwithstanding
subsection (b) of such section, for the cost to conduct a
housing demonstration program to provide
[[Page H7813]]
revolving loans for the preservation of low-income multi-
family housing projects, and for additional costs to conduct
a demonstration program for the preservation and
revitalization of multi-family rental housing properties
described in this paragraph, $31,756,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That of the funds made available
under this heading, $4,965,000 shall be available for rural
housing vouchers to any low-income household (including those
not receiving rental assistance) residing in a property
financed with a section 515 loan which has been prepaid after
September 30, 2005: Provided further, That the amount of such
voucher shall be the difference between comparable market
rent for the section 515 unit and the tenant paid rent for
such unit: Provided further, That funds made available for
such vouchers shall be subject to the availability of annual
appropriations: Provided further, That the Secretary shall,
to the maximum extent practicable, administer such vouchers
with current regulations and administrative guidance
applicable to section 8 housing vouchers administered by the
Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development:
Provided further, That if the Secretary determines that the
amount made available for vouchers in this or any other Act
is not needed for vouchers, the Secretary may use such funds
for the demonstration programs for the preservation and
revitalization of multi-family rental housing properties
described in this paragraph: Provided further, That of the
funds made available under this heading, $1,791,000 shall be
available for the cost of loans to private nonprofit
organizations, or such nonprofit organizations' affiliate
loan funds and State and local housing finance agencies, to
carry out a housing demonstration program to provide
revolving loans for the preservation of low-income multi-
family housing projects: Provided further, That loans under
such demonstration program shall have an interest rate of not
more than 1 percent direct loan to the recipient: Provided
further, That the Secretary may defer the interest and
principal payment to the Rural Housing Service for up to 3
years and the term of such loans shall not exceed 30 years:
Provided further, That of the funds made available under this
heading, $25,000,000 shall be available for a demonstration
program for the preservation and revitalization of the
section 514, 515, and 516 multi-family rental housing
properties to restructure existing USDA multi-family housing
loans, as the Secretary deems appropriate, expressly for the
purposes of ensuring the project has sufficient resources to
preserve the project for the purpose of providing safe and
affordable housing for low-income residents and farm laborers
including reducing or eliminating interest; deferring loan
payments, subordinating, reducing or reamortizing loan debt;
and other financial assistance including advances, payments
and incentives (including the ability of owners to obtain
reasonable returns on investment) required by the Secretary:
Provided further, That the Secretary shall as part of the
preservation and revitalization agreement obtain a
restrictive use agreement consistent with the terms of the
restructuring: Provided further, That if the Secretary
determines that additional funds for vouchers described in
this paragraph are needed, funds for the preservation and
revitalization demonstration program may be used for such
vouchers: Provided further, That if Congress enacts
legislation to permanently authorize a section 515 multi-
family rental housing loan restructuring program similar to
the demonstration program described herein, the Secretary may
use funds made available for the demonstration program under
this heading to carry out such legislation with the prior
approval of the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses
of Congress.
mutual and self-help housing grants
For grants and contracts pursuant to section 523(b)(1)(A)
of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1490c), $45,000,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That of the total
amount appropriated, $1,000,000 shall be available through
June 30, 2010, for authorized empowerment zones and
enterprise communities and communities designated by the
Secretary of Agriculture as Rural Economic Area Partnership
Zones.
rural housing assistance grants
(including transfer of funds)
For grants and contracts for very low-income housing
repair, supervisory and technical assistance, compensation
for construction defects, and rural housing preservation made
by the Rural Housing Service, as authorized by 42 U.S.C.
1474, 1479(c), 1490e, and 1490m, $45,500,000, to remain
available until expended, of which $4,000,000 shall be for
grants authorized by section 14204 of the Food, Conservation,
and Energy Act of 2008: Provided, That of the total amount
appropriated, $1,200,000 shall be available through June 30,
2010, for authorized empowerment zones and enterprise
communities and communities designated by the Secretary of
Agriculture as Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones:
Provided further, That any balances to carry out a housing
demonstration program to provide revolving loans for the
preservation of low-income multi-family housing projects as
authorized in Public Law 108-447 and Public Law 109-97 shall
be transferred to and merged with the ``Rural Housing
Service, Multi-family Housing Revitalization Program
Account''.
farm labor program account
For the cost of direct loans, grants, and contracts, as
authorized by 42 U.S.C. 1484 and 1486, $22,523,000, to remain
available until expended, for direct farm labor housing loans
and domestic farm labor housing grants and contracts.
Rural Community Facilities Program Account
(including transfers of funds)
For the cost of direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants
for rural community facilities programs as authorized by
section 306 and described in section 381E(d)(1) of the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, $51,091,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That $6,256,000 of
the amount appropriated under this heading shall be available
for a Rural Community Development Initiative: Provided
further, That such funds shall be used solely to develop the
capacity and ability of private, nonprofit community-based
housing and community development organizations, low-income
rural communities, and Federally Recognized Native American
Tribes to undertake projects to improve housing, community
facilities, community and economic development projects in
rural areas: Provided further, That such funds shall be made
available to qualified private, nonprofit and public
intermediary organizations proposing to carry out a program
of financial and technical assistance: Provided further, That
such intermediary organizations shall provide matching funds
from other sources, including Federal funds for related
activities, in an amount not less than funds provided:
Provided further, That $10,000,000 of the amount appropriated
under this heading shall be to provide grants for facilities
in rural communities with extreme unemployment and severe
economic depression (Public Law 106-387), with up to 5
percent for administration and capacity building in the State
rural development offices: Provided further, That $3,972,000
of the amount appropriated under this heading shall be
available for community facilities grants to tribal colleges,
as authorized by section 306(a)(19) of such Act: Provided
further, That not to exceed $1,000,000 of the amount
appropriated under this heading shall be available through
June 30, 2010, for authorized empowerment zones and
enterprise communities and communities designated by the
Secretary of Agriculture as Rural Economic Area Partnership
Zones for the rural community programs described in section
381E(d)(1) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act: Provided further, That sections 381E-H and 381N of the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act are not
applicable to the funds made available under this heading:
Provided further, That any prior balances in the Rural
Development, Rural Community Advancement Program account for
programs authorized by section 306 and described in section
381E(d)(1) of such Act be transferred and merged with this
account and any other prior balances from the Rural
Development, Rural Community Advancement Program account that
the Secretary determines is appropriate to transfer.
Rural Business--Cooperative Service
rural business program account
(including transfers of funds)
For the cost of loan guarantees and grants, for the rural
business development programs authorized by sections 306 and
310B and described in sections 310B(f) and 381E(d)(3) of the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, $97,116,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That of the amount
appropriated under this heading, not to exceed $500,000 shall
be made available for a grant to a qualified national
organization to provide technical assistance for rural
transportation in order to promote economic development and
$2,979,000 shall be for grants to the Delta Regional
Authority (7 U.S.C. 1921 et seq.) for any Rural Community
Advancement Program purpose as described in section 381E(d)
of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, of which
not more than 5 percent may be used for administrative
expenses: Provided further, That $4,000,000 of the amount
appropriated under this heading shall be for business grants
to benefit Federally Recognized Native American Tribes,
including $250,000 for a grant to a qualified national
organization to provide technical assistance for rural
transportation in order to promote economic development:
Provided further, That not to exceed $8,300,000 of the amount
appropriated under this heading shall be available through
June 30, 2010, for authorized empowerment zones and
enterprise communities and communities designated by the
Secretary of Agriculture as Rural Economic Area Partnership
Zones for the rural business and cooperative development
programs described in section 381E(d)(3) of the Consolidated
Farm and Rural Development Act: Provided further, That
sections 381E-H and 381N of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act are not applicable to funds made available
under this heading: Provided further, That any prior balances
in the Rural Development, Rural Community Advancement Program
account for programs authorized by sections 306 and 310B and
described in sections 310B(f) and 381E(d)(3) of such Act be
transferred and merged with this account and any other prior
balances from the Rural Development, Rural Community
Advancement Program account that the Secretary determines is
appropriate to transfer.
[[Page H7814]]
rural development loan fund program account
(including transfer of funds)
For the principal amount of direct loans, as authorized by
the Rural Development Loan Fund (42 U.S.C. 9812(a)),
$33,536,000.
For the cost of direct loans, $8,464,000, as authorized by
the Rural Development Loan Fund (42 U.S.C. 9812(a)), of which
$1,035,000 shall be available through June 30, 2010, for
Federally Recognized Native American Tribes and of which
$2,070,000 shall be available through June 30, 2010, for
Mississippi Delta Region counties (as determined in
accordance with Public Law 100-460): Provided, That such
costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be
as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974: Provided further, That of the total amount
appropriated, $880,000 shall be available through June 30,
2010, for the cost of direct loans for authorized empowerment
zones and enterprise communities and communities designated
by the Secretary of Agriculture as Rural Economic Area
Partnership Zones.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
direct loan programs, $4,941,000 shall be transferred to and
merged with the appropriation for ``Rural Development,
Salaries and Expenses''.
Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account
(including rescission of funds)
For the principal amount of direct loans, as authorized
under section 313 of the Rural Electrification Act, for the
purpose of promoting rural economic development and job
creation projects, $33,077,000.
Of the funds derived from interest on the cushion of credit
payments, as authorized by section 313 of the Rural
Electrification Act of 1936, $43,000,000 shall not be
obligated and $43,000,000 are rescinded.
rural cooperative development grants
For rural cooperative development grants authorized under
section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932), $30,636,000, of which
$300,000 shall be for a cooperative research agreement with a
qualified academic institution to conduct research on the
national economic impact of all types of cooperatives; and of
which $2,582,000 shall be for cooperative agreements for the
appropriate technology transfer for rural areas program:
Provided, That not to exceed $3,463,000 shall be for
cooperatives or associations of cooperatives whose primary
focus is to provide assistance to small, socially
disadvantaged producers and whose governing board and/or
membership is comprised of at least 75 percent socially
disadvantaged members; and of which $18,867,000, to remain
available until expended, shall be for value-added
agricultural product market development grants, as authorized
by section 231 of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of
2000 (7 U.S.C. 1621 note).
rural energy for america program
For the cost of a program of loan guarantees and grants,
under the same terms and conditions as authorized by section
9007 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7
U.S.C. 8107), $20,000,000: Provided, That the cost of loan
guarantees, including the cost of modifying such loans, shall
be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974.
Rural Utilities Service
rural water and waste disposal program account
(including transfers of funds)
For the cost of direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants
for the rural water, waste water, waste disposal, and solid
waste management programs authorized by sections 306, 306A,
306C, 306D, and 310B and described in sections 306C(a)(2),
306D, and 381E(d)(2) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act, $546,230,000, to remain available until
expended, of which not to exceed $497,000 shall be available
for the rural utilities program described in section
306(a)(2)(B) of such Act, and of which not to exceed $993,000
shall be available for the rural utilities program described
in section 306E of such Act: Provided, That $41,085,000 of
the amount appropriated under this heading shall be for loans
and grants including water and waste disposal systems grants
authorized by 306C(a)(2)(B) of the Consolidated Farm and
Rural Development Act and for Federally recognized Native
American Tribes authorized by 306C(a)(1): Provided further,
That not to exceed $19,500,000 of the amount appropriated
under this heading shall be for technical assistance grants
for rural water and waste systems pursuant to section
306(a)(14) of such Act, unless the Secretary makes a
determination of extreme need, of which $6,000,000 shall be
made available for a grant to a qualified nonprofit multi-
state regional technical assistance organization, with
experience in working with small communities on water and
waste water problems, the principal purpose of such grant
shall be to assist rural communities with populations of
3,300 or less, in improving the planning, financing,
development, operation, and management of water and waste
water systems, and of which not less than $800,000 shall be
for a qualified national Native American organization to
provide technical assistance for rural water systems for
tribal communities: Provided further, That not to exceed
$15,000,000 of the amount appropriated under this heading
shall be for contracting with qualified national
organizations for a circuit rider program to provide
technical assistance for rural water systems: Provided
further, That not to exceed $12,700,000 of the amount
appropriated under this heading shall be available through
June 30, 2010, for authorized empowerment zones and
enterprise communities and communities designated by the
Secretary of Agriculture as Rural Economic Area Partnership
Zones for the rural utilities programs described in section
381E(d)(2) of such Act: Provided further, That sections 381E-
H and 381N of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act
are not applicable to the funds made available under this
heading: Provided further, That any prior balances in the
Rural Development, Rural Community Advancement Program
account programs authorized by sections 306, 306A, 306C,
306D, and 310B and described in sections 306C(a)(2), 306D,
and 381E(d)(2) of such Act be transferred to and merged with
this account and any other prior balances from the Rural
Development, Rural Community Advancement Program account that
the Secretary determines is appropriate to transfer.
rural electrification and telecommunications loans program account
(including transfer of funds)
The principal amount of direct and guaranteed loans as
authorized by section 305 of the Rural Electrification Act of
1936 (7 U.S.C. 935) shall be made as follows: 5 percent rural
electrification loans, $100,000,000; loans made pursuant to
section 306 of that Act, rural electric, $6,500,000,000; 5
percent rural telecommunications loans, $145,000,000; cost of
money rural telecommunications loans, $250,000,000; and for
loans made pursuant to section 306 of that Act, rural
telecommunications loans, $295,000,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $39,959,000,
which shall be transferred to and merged with the
appropriation for ``Rural Development, Salaries and
Expenses''.
distance learning, telemedicine, and broadband program
For the principal amount of broadband telecommunication
loans, $400,000,000.
For grants for telemedicine and distance learning services
in rural areas, as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 950aaa et seq.,
$34,755,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That the Secretary may use funds under this heading for
grants authorized by 379(g) of the Consolidated Farm and
Rural Development Act.
For the cost of broadband loans, as authorized by section
601 of the Rural Electrification Act, $28,960,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That the cost of direct
loans shall be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974.
In addition, $17,976,000, to remain available until
expended, for a grant program to finance broadband
transmission in rural areas eligible for Distance Learning
and Telemedicine Program benefits authorized by 7 U.S.C.
950aaa.
TITLE IV
DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Under Secretary
for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services, $623,000.
Food and Nutrition Service
child nutrition programs
(including transfers of funds)
In lieu of the amounts made available in section 14222(b)
of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, for
necessary expenses to carry out the Richard B. Russell
National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.), except
section 21, and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C.
1771 et seq.), except sections 17 and 21; $16,799,584,000, to
remain available through September 30, 2011, of which
$10,051,707,000 is hereby appropriated and $6,747,877,000
shall be derived by transfer from funds available under
section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c):
Provided, That of the total amount available, $5,000,000
shall be available to be awarded as competitive grants to
implement section 4405 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy
Act of 2008 (Public Law No. 110-246).
special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children
(wic)
For necessary expenses to carry out the special
supplemental nutrition program as authorized by section 17 of
the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786),
$7,541,000,000, to remain available through September 30,
2011: Provided, That, notwithstanding section 17(h)(10)(A) of
such Act, only the provisions of section 17(h)(10)(B)(i),
section 17(h)(10)(B)(ii), and section 17(h)(10)(B)(iii) shall
be effective in 2010: Provided further, That none of the
funds provided in this account shall be available for the
purchase of infant formula except in accordance with the cost
containment and competitive bidding requirements specified in
section 17 of such Act: Provided further, That none of the
funds provided shall be available for activities that are not
fully reimbursed by other Federal Government departments or
agencies unless authorized by section 17 of such Act.
supplemental nutrition assistance program
For necessary expenses to carry out the Food and Nutrition
Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), $61,351,846,000, of
which $3,000,000,000, to remain available through September
30,
[[Page H7815]]
2011, shall be placed in reserve for use only in such amounts
and at such times as may become necessary to carry out
program operations: Provided, That funds provided herein
shall be expended in accordance with section 16 of the Food
and Nutrition Act of 2008: Provided further, That this
appropriation shall be subject to any work registration or
workfare requirements as may be required by law: Provided
further, That funds made available for Employment and
Training under this heading shall remain available until
expended, as authorized by section 16(h)(1) of the Food and
Nutrition Act of 2008: Provided further, That funds made
available under this heading may be used to enter into
contracts and employ staff to conduct studies, evaluations,
or to conduct activities related to program integrity
provided that such activities are authorized by the Food and
Nutrition Act of 2008.
commodity assistance program
For necessary expenses to carry out disaster assistance and
the Commodity Supplemental Food Program as authorized by
section 4(a) of the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act
of 1973 (7 U.S.C. 612c note); the Emergency Food Assistance
Act of 1983; special assistance for the nuclear affected
islands, as authorized by section 103(f)(2) of the Compact of
Free Association Amendments Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-188);
and the Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, as authorized by
section 17(m) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966,
$255,570,000, to remain available through September 30, 2011,
of which $5,000,000 shall be for emergency food program
infrastructure grants authorized by section 209 of the
Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983: Provided, That of the
amount provided, $5,000,000 is to begin service in six
additional states that have plans approved by the Department
for the commodity supplemental food program: Provided
further, That none of these funds shall be available to
reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for commodities
donated to the program: Provided further, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, effective with
funds made available in fiscal year 2010 to support the
Seniors Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, as authorized by
section 4402 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of
2002, such funds shall remain available through September 30,
2011: Provided further, That of the funds made available
under section 27(a) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2036(a)), the Secretary may use up to 10 percent for
costs associated with the distribution of commodities.
nutrition programs administration
For necessary administrative expenses of the Food and
Nutrition Service for carrying out any domestic nutrition
assistance program, $147,801,000.
TITLE V
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS
Foreign Agricultural Service
salaries and expenses
(including transfers of funds)
For necessary expenses of the Foreign Agricultural Service,
including not to exceed $158,000 for representation
allowances and for expenses pursuant to section 8 of the Act
approved August 3, 1956 (7 U.S.C. 1766), $177,136,000:
Provided, That the Service may utilize advances of funds, or
reimburse this appropriation for expenditures made on behalf
of Federal agencies, public and private organizations and
institutions under agreements executed pursuant to the
agricultural food production assistance programs (7 U.S.C.
1737) and the foreign assistance programs of the United
States Agency for International Development: Provided
further, That funds made available for the cost of agreements
under title I of the Agricultural Trade Development and
Assistance Act of 1954 and for title I ocean freight
differential may be used interchangeably between the two
accounts with prior notice to the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
Public Law 480 Title I Direct Credit and Food for Progress Program
Account
(including transfers of funds)
For administrative expenses to carry out the credit program
of title I, Public Law 83-480 and the Food for Progress Act
of 1985, $2,812,000, to be transferred to and merged with the
appropriation for ``Farm Service Agency, Salaries and
Expenses''.
Public Law 480 Title II Grants
For expenses during the current fiscal year, not otherwise
recoverable, and unrecovered prior years' costs, including
interest thereon, under the Food for Peace Act (Public Law
83-480, as amended), for commodities supplied in connection
with dispositions abroad under title II of said Act,
$1,690,000,000, to remain available until expended.
commodity credit corporation export loans program account
(including transfers of funds)
For administrative expenses to carry out the Commodity
Credit Corporation's export guarantee program, GSM 102 and
GSM 103, $6,820,000; to cover common overhead expenses as
permitted by section 11 of the Commodity Credit Corporation
Charter Act and in conformity with the Federal Credit Reform
Act of 1990, of which $6,465,000 shall be transferred to and
merged with the appropriation for ``Foreign Agricultural
Service, Salaries and Expenses'', and of which $355,000 shall
be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for
``Farm Service Agency, Salaries and Expenses''.
Mcgovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition
Program Grants
For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of
section 3107 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of
2002 (7 U.S.C. 1736o-1), $199,500,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That the Commodity Credit
Corporation is authorized to provide the services,
facilities, and authorities for the purpose of implementing
such section, subject to reimbursement from amounts provided
herein.
Ms. DeLAURO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the remainder of the bill through page 56, line 14, be
considered as read.
The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from
Connecticut?
There was no objection.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE VI
RELATED AGENCY AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
salaries and expenses
(including transfers of funds)
For necessary expenses of the Food and Drug Administration,
including hire and purchase of passenger motor vehicles; for
payment of space rental and related costs pursuant to Public
Law 92-313 for programs and activities of the Food and Drug
Administration which are included in this Act; for rental of
special purpose space in the District of Columbia or
elsewhere; for miscellaneous and emergency expenses of
enforcement activities, authorized and approved by the
Secretary and to be accounted for solely on the Secretary's
certificate, not to exceed $25,000; and notwithstanding
section 521 of Public Law 107-188; $2,995,218,000: Provided,
That of the amount provided under this heading, $578,162,000
shall be derived from prescription drug user fees authorized
by 21 U.S.C. 379h shall be credited to this account and
remain available until expended, and shall not include any
fees pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 379h(a)(2) and (a)(3) assessed for
fiscal year 2011 but collected in fiscal year 2010;
$57,014,000 shall be derived from medical device user fees
authorized by 21 U.S.C. 379j, and shall be credited to this
account and remain available until expended; $17,280,000
shall be derived from animal drug user fees authorized by 21
U.S.C. 379j, and shall be credited to this account and remain
available until expended; and $5,106,000 shall be derived
from animal generic drug user fees authorized by 21 U.S.C.
379f, and shall be credited to this account and shall remain
available until expended: Provided further, That fees derived
from prescription drug, medical device, animal drug, and
animal generic drug assessments for fiscal year 2010 received
during fiscal year 2010, including any such fees assessed
prior to fiscal year 2010 but credited for fiscal year 2010,
shall be subject to the fiscal year 2010 limitations:
Provided further, That none of these funds shall be used to
develop, establish, or operate any program of user fees
authorized by 31 U.S.C. 9701: Provided further, That of the
total amount appropriated: (1) $782,915,000 shall be for the
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition and related
field activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs; (2)
$873,104,000 shall be for the Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research and related field activities in the Office of
Regulatory Affairs; (3) $305,249,000 shall be for the Center
for Biologics Evaluation and Research and for related field
activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs; (4)
$155,540,000 shall be for the Center for Veterinary Medicine
and for related field activities in the Office of Regulatory
Affairs; (5) $349,262,000 shall be for the Center for Devices
and Radiological Health and for related field activities in
the Office of Regulatory Affairs; (6) $58,745,000 shall be
for the National Center for Toxicological Research; (7) not
to exceed $115,882,000 shall be for Rent and Related
activities, of which $41,496,000 is for White Oak
Consolidation, other than the amounts paid to the General
Services Administration for rent; (8) not to exceed
$168,728,000 shall be for payments to the General Services
Administration for rent; and (9) $185,793,000 shall be for
other activities, including the Office of the Commissioner;
the Office of Scientific and Medical Programs; the Office of
Policy, Planning and Preparedness; the Office of
International and Special Programs; the Office of Operations;
and central services for these offices: Provided further,
That none of the funds made available under this heading
shall be used to transfer funds under section 770(n) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 379dd):
Provided further, That funds may be transferred from one
specified activity to another with the prior approval of the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
part b amendment no. 3 offered by mr. broun of georgia
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
[[Page H7816]]
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part B amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia:
Page 57, line 8, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(reduced by $373,000,000)''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 609, the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Broun) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak on behalf
of my amendment to the fiscal year 2010 Agriculture Appropriations
bill.
This amendment would simply maintain funding for the Food and Drug
Administration at the same level as last year. It would save taxpayers
$373 million. As American families struggle to tighten their fiscal
belts and spend less, I believe Congress should stop spending so much.
Tragically, many of my colleagues were not allowed the opportunity to
bring their amendments up for debate today. Because Democratic leaders
have changed the traditional process, American families have missed
over 70 opportunities to reduce wasteful programs and to fix what's
broken here in Washington, the outrageous spending that we're doing.
You would think in these difficult times that Congress would be
willing to restore the people's faith in the way that we spend their
money. I think most people would like for us to be more frugal. For my
part, I also tried to offer an amendment to reduce the bill's funding
level by half of a percent, 0.5 percent, a reduction of just half a
penny out of every dollar spent, but that amendment was not allowed to
be offered on the floor today, as well as were many others that I
offered.
Other amendments I offered would have saved hundreds of millions of
taxpayer dollars by eliminating double dipping, maintaining other
programs at the 2009 levels, and preventing the purchase of new Federal
lands, but these amendments were not allowed either.
Mr. Chairman, as the House conducts one of its most important tasks,
the appropriation of funds, we owe it to the American families and
people to have an open debate, to allow all ideas to be heard, and to
work towards real fiscal constraint here in Washington. We can do that
in a bipartisan manner, but we're not allowed to do so by the
leadership. In fact, the Democrats should be as outraged as I am that
their voice is not heard either. Debate is being stifled, and it's not
right. It's not fair not only to us, but it's not fair to the American
people.
We have to stop this outrageous spending that we're doing. I urge my
colleagues to support my modest and simple amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. I strongly oppose this amendment.
This amendment would take away the entire increase over 2009 that is
provided in this bill for the Food and Drug Administration. That
increase will allow the agency to increase staffing, including staffing
devoted to inspections and other field activities, make real
improvements in FDA's work to ensure the safety of foods and medical
products. For example, in the foods area, FDA will be able to conduct
1,150 more foreign and domestic food inspections and do 20,000 more
examinations of imported food products. In the medical products area,
FDA will conduct 3,300 more examinations of imported drug products and
4,400 more examinations of imported medical device products.
The FDA will also be able to update its labs with new equipment, will
allow it to do a faster analysis of examples. This is especially
important during food-borne illness outbreaks. And we have watched
what's happened in food-borne illness outbreaks not only in terms of
the public health, but we have left industry out there to be exposed
and to be able to lose their share, whether it is leafy greens, whether
it's tomatoes, whatever it is, if we cannot allow these laboratories to
function and to find out what's going on.
The investments reap benefits in the next several years. New
inspectors hired with funds in this bill are fully trained, bringing
significantly more domestic and foreign inspections and import field
exams and other activities by increases in the bill.
We can do research on Salmonella and E. coli biomarkers, new methods
of rapid detection of decontamination, improved ability to collect and
analyze data on food-borne illnesses. And if you can't understand, when
you listen to a mother who says my child of 2 years old died from E.
coli contamination--
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Would the gentlelady yield?
Ms. DeLAURO. I am happy to have you speak again. You reserved time.
You know, we have just seen an E. coli outbreak in cookie dough. It
highlights the importance of what these additional funds can help us to
do. The E. coli bacteria lives inside animals, and that's why E. coli
outbreaks are often associated with meat products. How, then, does E.
coli get into cookie dough? Additional research on E. coli can help
determine how it happened and results could prevent future outbreaks.
In addition to the work on food safety, the increased funds will help
the FDA work on new screening tests for blood-borne disease to better
understand the adverse events related to medical devices that are used
in pediatric hospitals.
Another important tool that the additional funds will provide is to
allow the FDA to make substantial investments in information technology
for both foods and medical products. This allows the agency to receive
and to better analyze adverse events electronically, support electronic
submission of applications, and access old data for safety analyses.
{time} 2100
I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, maybe the gentlewoman doesn't
know that I'm a physician. I'm concerned about people's health. And my
amendment won't do a thing to cut all those programs that you're
accusing me of trying to cut. And I resent the fact that you're
accusing me of trying to cut that because I'm not trying to hurt
people. I'm not trying to harm folks. I'm not trying to stop research.
And my amendment wouldn't do that.
My amendment would simply put the funding at the current level. We
are stealing our grandchildren's future by spending so much money, by
creating a huge debt. I'm not picking on the FDA. What I'm trying to do
is I'm trying to save my grandchildren's future. And what we have right
now with this bill is a 14 percent increase in funding over last year.
That's outrageous. And I resent the fact that you're saying that I'm
going to cut all these programs, because my amendment will not.
And, frankly, I just don't understand this kind of emotional debate
because it's not debate and it's not correct. The thing that I want to
do is I want to save my grandchildren's future by stopping this
outrageous, egregious spending that we're doing here. We don't have the
money.
Let's keep all these programs. I would love to see us have continuing
resolutions for all these appropriations bills across the board, freeze
the spending for at least a year.
The people in my district are suffering. Most counties have a 13 to
14 percent unemployment rate. And what we are doing is we are
increasing the budget for this bill, for this appropriations bill, by
14 percent. That's outrageous.
And I tell you, the American people should be outraged. They should
be calling every single congressional office and saying ``no'' to these
spending bills that are just basically stealing our children and
grandchildren's future.
We have got to stop this spending. It's absolutely ridiculous. It's
going to bankrupt this country, if we're not already bankrupt. And I'm
just trying to save spending the taxpayers' dollars. It's absolutely
critical that we do that.
The budget that was presented by our President increases the debt
over the next 5 years more than every single President since George
Washington. I
[[Page H7817]]
hear your side keep talking about the debt President Bush created. I
wasn't here during that time. I voted against all the bills that we
have had since I've been up here, and I think George Bush was wrong in
creating that much debt. But your President and my President is
creating more debt than George Bush and every other President in
history.
We need to stop this spending.
Ms. DeLAURO. First of all, it's an 11 percent increase, not 14
percent. I'm trying to save your grandchildren's lives and other
grandchildren's lives and my own as well.
We have watched over the last several months and the last couple of
years, and the ranking member of this committee understands this and
knows this, and we inspect 1 percent of the food that comes into this
country from overseas, 1 percent. And the cry has been that there have
not been enough inspectors to be able to do that. We are unable to
trace back what happened with regard to lettuce, to tomatoes, and
others, all of which are putting our families at risk. Your cut, in
fact, would put this agency back in jeopardy where it has been for the
last several years.
I resent the fact that you as a physician do not understand the value
of what the Food and Drug Administration does and that it is
responsible for lives. These are not roads. These are not bridges or
parks. This is an agency that has authority over people's lives and the
public health.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR. Members are advised to direct their comments to the Chair.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
In addition, mammography user fees authorized by 42 U.S.C.
263b, export certification user fees authorized by 21 U.S.C.
381, and priority review user fees authorized by 21 U.S.C.
360n may be credited to this account, to remain available
until expended.
buildings and facilities
For plans, construction, repair, improvement, extension,
alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities of
or used by the Food and Drug Administration, where not
otherwise provided, $12,433,000, to remain available until
expended.
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
commodity futures trading commission
For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the
Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), including the
purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles, and the rental
of space (to include multiple year leases) in the District of
Columbia and elsewhere, $160,600,000, including not to exceed
$3,000 for official reception and representation expenses:
Provided, That $14,600,000 of the total amount appropriated
under this heading shall not be available for obligation
until the Commodity Futures Trading Commission submits an
expenditure plan for fiscal year 2010 to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
and the Committees approve the whole of the plan.
Farm Credit Administration
limitation on administrative expenses
Not to exceed $54,500,000 (from assessments collected from
farm credit institutions, including the Federal Agricultural
Mortgage Corporation) shall be obligated during the current
fiscal year for administrative expenses as authorized under
12 U.S.C. 2249: Provided, That this limitation shall not
apply to expenses associated with receiverships.
TITLE VII
GENERAL PROVISIONS
(including rescissions and transfers of funds)
Sec. 701. Within the unit limit of cost fixed by law,
appropriations and authorizations made for the Department of
Agriculture for the current fiscal year under this Act shall
be available for the purchase, in addition to those
specifically provided for, of not to exceed 204 passenger
motor vehicles, of which 170 shall be for replacement only,
and for the hire of such vehicles.
Sec. 702. New obligational authority provided for the
following appropriation items in this Act shall remain
available until expended: Food Safety and Inspection Service,
Public Health Data Communication Infrastructure System; Farm
Service Agency, salaries and expenses funds made available to
county committees; Foreign Agricultural Service, middle-
income country training program, and up to $2,000,000 of the
Foreign Agricultural Service appropriation solely for the
purpose of offsetting fluctuations in international currency
exchange rates, subject to documentation by the Foreign
Agricultural Service.
Sec. 703. The Secretary of Agriculture may transfer
unobligated balances of discretionary funds appropriated by
this Act or other available unobligated discretionary
balances of the Department of Agriculture to the Working
Capital Fund for the acquisition of plant and capital
equipment necessary for the delivery of financial,
administrative, and information technology services of
primary benefit to the agencies of the Department of
Agriculture: Provided, That none of the funds made available
by this Act or any other Act shall be transferred to the
Working Capital Fund without the prior approval of the agency
administrator: Provided further, That none of the funds
transferred to the Working Capital Fund pursuant to this
section shall be available for obligation without the prior
approval of the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses
of Congress: Provided further, That none of the funds
appropriated by this Act or made available to the
Department's Working Capital Fund shall be available for
obligation or expenditure to make any changes to the
Department's National Finance Center without prior approval
of the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of
Congress as required by section 712 of this Act.
Sec. 704. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 705. No funds appropriated by this Act may be used to
pay negotiated indirect cost rates on cooperative agreements
or similar arrangements between the United States Department
of Agriculture and nonprofit institutions in excess of 10
percent of the total direct cost of the agreement when the
purpose of such cooperative arrangements is to carry out
programs of mutual interest between the two parties. This
does not preclude appropriate payment of indirect costs on
grants and contracts with such institutions when such
indirect costs are computed on a similar basis for all
agencies for which appropriations are provided in this Act.
Sec. 706. Appropriations to the Department of Agriculture
for the cost of direct and guaranteed loans made available in
the current fiscal year shall remain available until expended
to disburse obligations made in the current fiscal year for
the following accounts: the Rural Development Loan Fund
program account, the Rural Electrification and
Telecommunication Loans program account, and the Rural
Housing Insurance Fund program account.
Sec. 707. Of the funds made available by this Act, not more
than $1,800,000 shall be used to cover necessary expenses of
activities related to all advisory committees, panels,
commissions, and task forces of the Department of
Agriculture, except for panels used to comply with negotiated
rule makings and panels used to evaluate competitively
awarded grants.
Sec. 708. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used to carry out section 410 of the Federal Meat Inspection
Act (21 U.S.C. 679a) or section 30 of the Poultry Products
Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 471).
Sec. 709. No employee of the Department of Agriculture may
be detailed or assigned from an agency or office funded by
this Act to any other agency or office of the Department for
more than 30 days unless the individual's employing agency or
office is fully reimbursed by the receiving agency or office
for the salary and expenses of the employee for the period of
assignment.
Sec. 710. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available to the Department of Agriculture or the Food and
Drug Administration shall be used to transmit or otherwise
make available to any non-Department of Agriculture or non-
Department of Health and Human Services employee questions or
responses to questions that are a result of information
requested for the appropriations hearing process.
Sec. 711. None of the funds made available to the
Department of Agriculture by this Act may be used to acquire
new information technology systems or significant upgrades,
as determined by the Office of the Chief Information Officer,
without the approval of the Chief Information Officer and the
concurrence of the Executive Information Technology
Investment Review Board: Provided, That notwithstanding any
other provision of law, none of the funds appropriated or
otherwise made available by this Act may be transferred to
the Office of the Chief Information Officer without the prior
approval of the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses
of Congress: Provided further, That none of the funds
available to the Department of Agriculture for information
technology shall be obligated for projects over $25,000 prior
to receipt of written approval by the Chief Information
Officer.
Sec. 712. (a) None of the funds provided by this Act, or
provided by previous Appropriations Acts to the agencies
funded by this Act that remain available for obligation or
expenditure in the current fiscal year, or provided from any
accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the
collection of fees available to the agencies funded by
[[Page H7818]]
this Act, shall be available for obligation or expenditure
through a reprogramming of funds which--
(1) creates new programs;
(2) eliminates a program, project, or activity;
(3) increases funds or personnel by any means for any
project or activity for which funds have been denied or
restricted;
(4) relocates an office or employees;
(5) reorganizes offices, programs, or activities; or
(6) contracts out or privatizes any functions or activities
presently performed by Federal employees; unless the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress are
notified 15 days in advance of such reprogramming of funds.
(b) None of the funds provided by this Act, or provided by
previous Appropriations Acts to the agencies funded by this
Act that remain available for obligation or expenditure in
the current fiscal year, or provided from any accounts in the
Treasury of the United States derived by the collection of
fees available to the agencies funded by this Act, shall be
available for obligation or expenditure for activities,
programs, or projects through a reprogramming of funds in
excess of $500,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, that:
(1) augments existing programs, projects, or activities; (2)
reduces by 10 percent funding for any existing program,
project, or activity, or numbers of personnel by 10 percent
as approved by Congress; or (3) results from any general
savings from a reduction in personnel which would result in a
change in existing programs, activities, or projects as
approved by Congress; unless the Committees on Appropriations
of both Houses of Congress are notified 15 days in advance of
such reprogramming of funds.
(c) The Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary of Health
and Human Services shall notify the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress before implementing
a program or activity not carried out during the previous
fiscal year unless the program or activity is funded by this
Act or specifically funded by any other Act.
Sec. 713. None of the funds appropriated by this or any
other Act shall be used to pay the salaries and expenses of
personnel who prepare or submit appropriations language as
part of the President's Budget submission to the Congress of
the United States for programs under the jurisdiction of the
Appropriations Subcommittees on Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies that assumes revenues or reflects a reduction from
the previous year due to user fees proposals that have not
been enacted into law prior to the submission of the Budget
unless such Budget submission identifies which additional
spending reductions should occur in the event the user fees
proposals are not enacted prior to the date of the convening
of a committee of conference for the fiscal year 2011
appropriations Act.
Sec. 714. None of the funds made available by this or any
other Act may be used to close or relocate a Rural
Development office unless or until the Secretary of
Agriculture determines the cost effectiveness and/or
enhancement of program delivery: Provided, That not later
than 120 days before the date of the proposed closure or
relocation, the Secretary notifies the Committees on
Appropriation of the House and Senate, and the members of
Congress from the State in which the office is located of the
proposed closure or relocation and provides a report that
describes the justifications for such closures and
relocations.
Sec. 715. None of the funds made available to the Food and
Drug Administration by this Act shall be used to close or
relocate, or to plan to close or relocate, the Food and Drug
Administration Division of Pharmaceutical Analysis in St.
Louis, Missouri, outside the city or county limits of St.
Louis, Missouri.
Sec. 716. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this or any other Act shall be used to pay the
salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out an
environmental quality incentives program authorized by
chapter 4 of subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security Act
of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa et seq.) in excess of
$1,180,000,000.
Sec. 717. None of the funds made available in fiscal year
2009 or preceding fiscal years for programs authorized under
the Food for Peace Act (7 U.S.C. 1691 et seq.) in excess of
$20,000,000 shall be used to reimburse the Commodity Credit
Corporation for the release of eligible commodities under
section 302(f)(2)(A) of the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust
Act (7 U.S.C. 1736f-1): Provided, That any such funds made
available to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation shall
only be used pursuant to section 302(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Bill
Emerson Humanitarian Trust Act.
Sec. 718. No funds shall be used to pay salaries and
expenses of the Department of Agriculture to carry out or
administer the program authorized by section 14(h)(1) of the
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C.
1012(h)(1)).
Sec. 719. Funds made available under section 1240I and
section 1241(a) of the Food Security Act of 1985 and section
524(b) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1524(b))
in the current fiscal year shall remain available until
expended to disburse obligations made in the current fiscal
year.
Sec. 720. Unless otherwise authorized by existing law, none
of the funds provided in this Act, may be used by an
executive branch agency to produce any prepackaged news story
intended for broadcast or distribution in the United States
unless the story includes a clear notification within the
text or audio of the prepackaged news story that the
prepackaged news story was prepared or funded by that
executive branch agency.
Sec. 721. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any
former RUS borrower that has repaid or prepaid an insured,
direct or guaranteed loan under the Rural Electrification
Act, or any not-for-profit utility that is eligible to
receive an insured or direct loan under such Act, shall be
eligible for assistance under section 313(b)(2)(B) of such
Act in the same manner as a borrower under such Act.
Sec. 722. Of the unobligated balances under section 32 of
the Act of August 24, 1935, $52,000,000 are hereby rescinded.
Sec. 723. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to establish or implement a rule allowing poultry
products to be imported into the United States from the
People's Republic of China.
Sec. 724. None of the funds made available to the
Department of Agriculture in this Act may be used to
implement the risk-based inspection program in the 30
prototype locations announced on February 22, 2007, by the
Under Secretary for Food Safety, or at any other locations,
until the USDA Office of Inspector General has provided its
findings to the Food Safety and Inspection Service and the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate on the data used in support of the development
and design of the risk-based inspection program and FSIS has
addressed and resolved issues identified by OIG.
Sec. 725. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and
until receipt of the decennial Census in the year 2010, the
Secretary of Agriculture shall consider--
(1) the city of Lumberton, North Carolina, and the city of
Sanford, North Carolina (including individuals and entities
with projects within the city), eligible for loans and grants
funded through the Rural Community Facilities Program
account;
(2) the unincorporated area of Los Osos, California
(including individuals and entities with projects within the
cities), eligible for loans and grants funded through the
Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program account; and
(3) the city of Nogales, Arizona (including individuals and
entities with projects within the city), eligible for loans
and grants funded under the housing programs of the Rural
Housing Service.
Sec. 726. There is hereby appropriated $2,500,000 for
section 4404 of Public Law 107-171.
Sec. 727. There is hereby appropriated:
(1) $1,408,000 shall be for a grant to the Wisconsin
Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection, as
authorized by section 6402 of the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 1621 note);
(2) $1,000,000 shall be for development of a prototype for
a national carbon inventory and accounting system for
forestry and agriculture, to be awarded under full and open
competition;
(3) $1,000,000 for the International Food Protection
Training Institute; and
(4) $200,000 for the Center for Foodborne Illness Research
and Prevention.
Sec. 728. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Natural Resources Conservation Service shall provide
financial and technical assistance through the Watershed and
Flood Prevention Operations program to carry out--
(1) the Alameda Creek Watershed Project in Alameda County,
California;
(2) the Hurricane Katrina-Related Watershed Restoration
project in Jackson County, Mississippi;
(3) the Pidcock-Mill Creeks Watershed project in Bucks
County, Pennsylvania;
(4) the Farmington River Restoration project in Litchfield
County, Connecticut;
(5) the Lake Oscawana Management and Restoration project in
Putnam County, New York; and
(6) the Richland Creek Reservoir in Paulding County,
Georgia.
Sec. 729. Section 17(r)(5) of the Richard B. Russell
National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1766(r)(5)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``the District of Columbia and'' after the
first instance of ``institutions located in'';
(2) by striking ``ten'' and inserting ``eleven'';
(3) by striking ``eight'' and inserting ``nine''; and
(4) by inserting ``Connecticut,'' after the first instance
of ``States shall be''.
Sec. 730. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for
the purposes of a grant under section 412 of the Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998, none
of the funds in this or any other Act may be used to prohibit
the provision of in-kind support from non-Federal sources
under section 412(e)(3) in the form of unrecovered indirect
costs not otherwise charged against the grant, consistent
with the indirect rate of cost approved for a recipient.
Sec. 731. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to pay the salaries or expenses of personnel to--
(1) inspect horses under section 3 of the Federal Meat
Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 603);
(2) inspect horses under section 903 of the Federal
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 1901
note; Public Law 104-127); or
(3) implement or enforce section 352.19 of title 9, Code of
Federal Regulations.
[[Page H7819]]
Sec. 732. The Secretary of Agriculture may authorize a
State agency to use funds provided in this Act to exceed the
maximum amount of reconstituted liquid concentrate infant
formula specified in 7 CFR 246.10 when issuing liquid
concentrate infant formula to participants.
Ms. DeLAURO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the remainder of the bill through page 74, line 15 be
considered as read.
The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from
Connecticut?
There was no objection.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 733. Of the unobligated balances provided pursuant to
section 16(h)(1)(A) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008,
$11,000,000 is hereby rescinded.
Sec. 734. Of the prior year unobligated balances provided
for the purpose of section 306D of the Consolidated Farm and
Rural Development Act, $25,008,000 is hereby rescinded.
Part B Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mrs. Blackburn
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part B amendment No. 1 offered by Mrs. Blackburn:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated
or otherwise made available by a provision of law is hereby
reduced by 5 percent.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 609, the gentlewoman from
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Tennessee.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, tonight I rise in support of the
American taxpayer.
Like a lot of my colleagues, I was home last week. I spent a lot of
my time talking with constituents and listening to them and to their
concerns. And it seems like wherever I went and whomever I spoke with,
one concern overrode all of the others. They talked to us a lot about
how astounded they were with cap-and-trade and they talked about their
fears of what the liberal proposals were going to do to health care.
But the one thing that overrode them all, the commonality of concern,
was with spending, the deficit, and national debt. Many times they used
the term ``I am dumbfounded'' by what we are spending. Where is this
money coming from? Is it coming from China? Is it coming from India?
Are we just continuing to roll up the debt? And over and over they
said, Tell me what we can do to stop this excessive spending.
Well, Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a good first step, and it is a
way that we can begin to slow the Federal spending.
The approps bill before us represents nearly a 12 percent spending
increase over last year. And if you add all the stimulus spending,
which was $26.5 billion, and the emergency spending, which was $7.9
billion, these programs have benefited from about a 125 percent
increase over the past 3 years. So can any of us say that spending 125
percent more than we did on these programs last year in this economic
climate is responsible? Look at what that growth has been over a 3-year
period of time.
Mr. Chairman, I am asking my colleagues to agree with me to give back
just one nickel out of every dollar that is being appropriated and
given to the bureaucracy, one nickel out of every single dollar.
As my colleagues all know, I am probably the proudest grandmother
here on Capitol Hill. I have two adorable grandsons. My oldest grandson
is barely a year old, and he and his brother, his 3-week-old brother,
are each already in debt to the tune of about $70,000 to the Federal
Government.
I know that there are thousands of grandparents that are out there
just like me. They are incredibly concerned about what they see
happening. They fear that the exploding debt and the deficit will
compromise and will cap the opportunity of those precious children and
that we will trade their bright future for one that is limited by a
national debt that makes this Nation so sluggish that the best and the
brightest opportunities are going to end up going elsewhere. And where
are we getting the money? We are getting the money from our
grandchildren.
So I urge support of my amendment. Cut 5 percent across the board.
Cut a nickel from every dollar. And require today's bureaucracy to find
a way to do what the American taxpayer is doing, to tighten the belt
and save that nickel out of a dollar for our future.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to
the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
gentlewoman's amendment, which would cut all the agencies and the
programs in the bill by 5 percent. I understand. I have three beautiful
grandchildren, and they are the light of my life. And for that reason,
I'm opposed to this amendment.
This would represent a cut of $1.1 billion from the bill. Now, this
is exactly the wrong time to cut funding for critical programs under
the bill that protect the public health, bolster food nutrition
assistance programs, invests in rural communities, in agriculture
research, strengthen animal health and marketing programs, and conserve
our natural resources.
While the bill received a relatively large increase over 2009, it is
important to understand that the large majority goes to fund just three
priorities: $681 million for higher WIC participation and for food
costs, $560 million for International Food Aid programs, and $299
million for the Food and Drug Administration to better protect our
public health. At the same time, the bill made cuts in a number of
programs below 2009 totaling $274 million. We also rejected $735
million in increases in the budget request.
So rather than using targeted, precision cuts, as we have done with
this bill, an across-the-board cut would hurt core programs, would
increase the investment deficits our communities across the country
have had to overcome in the past years regardless of the value of the
program.
These increases are needed to support vital services and priorities,
vital and effective programs which, quite frankly, have broad
bipartisan support. The increases in these areas are needed to ensure
adequate funding to support the food nutrition safety net for families
that serve an estimated 10.1 million women and children in 2010,
strengthen even more of America's commitment to meet humanitarian food
aid needs, to enhance the FDA's capabilities to ensure the safety of
our food and medical products.
The bill also uses a portion of the increase to make up for cuts to
farm bill conservation programs. We did not accept the cuts to priority
farm bill conservation programs that the 2010 budget proposed. That
budget made significant cuts to wetlands research programs, farmland
protection, wildlife habitat programs, all effective programs with
backlogs of applications from farmers and from ranchers. All told, the
committee bill provides hundreds of millions in funding above the 2010
budget for farm bill conservation programs. Thus the bill uses a
significant portion of the increase to make up for the cuts.
In conclusion, I want to note that the increases in this bill are not
based on the belief that we should just throw money at the challenges
that we face. The increases are about meeting the Federal Government's
obligations. Again, I think we need to take a look at core programs,
whether it's USDA or FDA. The gentlewoman's amendment would force all
of these agencies that cover rural development, food and drug safety,
WIC, food stamps to seek drastic cuts in a time of acute need. I think
this amendment is fiscally irresponsible. It will further harm our
rural communities and our public health, and I urge my colleagues to
oppose it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman mentioned fiscal
irresponsibility. I think that growing programs by 12 percent when they
have already seen enormous, enormous increases is irresponsible.
We are asking to curtail the growth 5 percent. Curtail that growth 5
percent.
[[Page H7820]]
You know, the States have been a great lab of experimentation in this.
And many States, including mine of Tennessee, have had across-the-board
cuts, and they have used that to rein in the bureaucracy and say
tighten your belts. Times are tough. Tighten your belts. And, Mr.
Chairman, that is what we should do.
Priorities. She talked about priorities. How about the priority of
the American taxpayer? How about the priority of the American farmer
who writes that check to Uncle Sam every year and turns to his child
and says, Guess what, you're not going to go to the university; you're
going to go get another job and work another year before you can go.
{time} 2115
These are priorities that are set aside while they meet our
obligation to us. It is our responsibility to be good stewards of that
dollar. And giving egregious raises--listen to this. McGovern-Dole
International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program grants, an
increase of 99.5 percent; FDA salaries and expenses--and, trust me,
Energy and Commerce, we've been after them for a long time--14.6
percent.
The list goes on and on.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. DeLAURO. How much time is available?
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 1\1/2\ minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. I would just like to say that this bill addresses the
plight of the American farmers, rural America. And I don't come from
rural America. I come from the Northeast. But I have farms.
I'm watching dairy farmers go out of business. That's happening all
over the country. And watching the technical assistance programs with
backlogs that are not addressing the needs of the American farmer.
This bill addresses those issues.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. If the gentlelady will yield.
Ms. DeLAURO. I just have 1\1/2\ minutes left--and less than that now.
This bill is looking at how we can in fact meet the obligations that
we have in a time of fiscal and economic crisis and economic insecurity
all over this country. Under the jurisdiction of this bill is rural
development. In addition to that, it protects the public health, which
we're obligated to do. And when you see nine people die from peanut-
based products because we cannot trace back, we cannot analyze, we do
not have--
Mrs. BLACKBURN. If the gentlelady will yield, we have done plenty--
Ms. DeLAURO. We do not have the tools that are necessary in order to
be able to understand what happened. This bill addresses--
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Money doesn't solve that problem.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman will suspend. The gentlewoman from
Connecticut controls the time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Across-the-board cuts apply a meat ax and don't have a
precision cut and make a difference. I urge my colleagues to oppose the
amendment.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Tennessee will be
postponed.
Part E Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Hensarling
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk,
amendment No. 6.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part E amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Hensarling:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds provided in this Act under the
heading ``Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service--
Salaries and Expenses'' shall be available for the National
Biodiversity Conservation Strategy project, Kiski Basin,
Pennsylvania, and the amount otherwise provided under such
heading is hereby reduced by $200,000.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 609, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Hensarling) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. HENSARLING. This is an amendment that would strike an earmark,
better known as pork barrel spending. Specifically, $200,000 requested
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) for the Natural
Biodiversity of Johnstown, Pennsylvania, for conservation strategy at
the Kiski Basin.
If one goes to the Web site of Natural Biodiversity, they will learn
that ``they control invasive, nonnative plants.''
``Holistic habitat management techniques are being used to restore
riparian buffers on sites throughout the Kiski-Conemaugh and upper
Juniata drainages.'' I hope I pronounced those properly.
Mr. Chairman, permit me to put this amendment into a broader context.
Clearly, the national priority has got to be job growth, economic
growth. And, by any standard, the economic policies of this Democratic
Congress, the economic policies of this administration have been an
abject failure: 2.6 million jobs lost since February--467,000 jobs lost
last month alone; 9.5 percent unemployment throughout the land--the
highest unemployment in a quarter of a century.
Mr. Chairman, what do we have to show for it? Nothing but debt.
Mountains and mountains of debt in spending for our children and
grandchildren, already. $9,810 per household to fund a $1.13 trillion
government stimulus plan; $3,534 per household to fund a $410 billion
omnibus; $31,000 per household to fund a $3.6 trillion 2010 budget.
Tripling, tripling the Federal debt in 10 years. More debt in the
next 10 years than in the previous 220; billions for Chrysler; billions
for GM; billions for AIG. Borrowing 46 cents on the dollar, borrowing
it from the Chinese, sending the bill to our children and
grandchildren. That's the context, Mr. Chairman.
So I ask one and only one thing. Here's an opportunity. Here's an
opportunity for the taxpayers to maybe save $300,000. Not to borrow
that money from the Chinese.
Now I have no idea--I have no doubt, I have no doubt that the
gentleman from Pennsylvania is sincere. I'm sure good things can be
done with this money by the Natural Biodiversity and their holistic
habitat management program. I have no doubt that good things could be
done with that money.
But let me tell you other good things that can be done with the
money. That money could be used to go against the deficit so we don't
borrow money from the Chinese, so we don't send the bill to our
children and grandchildren. And if we're going to spend it, Mr.
Chairman, maybe we ought to spend it on small businesses--small
businesses that are capitalized with $25,000, on average, according to
the SBA. We could save eight small businesses in America.
But, most importantly right now, we could tell America that we know
what the priorities are--and it's not weed management by Natural
Biodiversity in the Kiski River Basin. I have no idea how this became a
national priority.
I'm sure, again, that important things can be done with the money,
but is it worth borrowing the money from the Chinese and sending the
bill to our children and our grandchildren? I think not.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to this
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Though the gentleman who sponsored this project could
not be here tonight, he has provided me with the following information.
This is a conservation project for a not-for-profit volunteer
program. Natural Biodiversity was initiated in response to citizens'
concerns for invasive plant problems in the 1,887 square mile Kiski-
Conemaugh drainage portion of the Allegheny River and Ohio River Basin.
Subsequent work has been expanded the geographic area to include the
Juniata watershed of the Chesapeake Bay, the State of Pennsylvania, and
a much larger mid-Atlantic region.
Invasive plant management work has led to innovative approaches,
including
[[Page H7821]]
native plant restoration and comprehensive land stewardship practices.
Some of their early achievements have been the early detection and
rapid response to noxious weeds and 32 invasive plant locations;
education and outreach to 10,000 people, with a potential audience of
500,000 each year; development of a management plan for the 1,000-
square-mile Raystown branch of the Juniata River.
So, again, it is a not-for-profit volunteer program that is dealing
with a concern and a large area about invasive plant problems. And I
urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Well, it was an interesting discussion, Mr. Chairman.
I'm not sure it's worthy of borrowing $200,000 dollars from the Chinese
and sending the bill to our children and grandchildren.
I'm sorry that the gentleman from Pennsylvania couldn't make it here
tonight. I know he is busy with many, many earmarks. According to the
April 19 edition of the Washington Post, Murtha, dubbed the King of
Pork by critics, consistently directs more Federal money to his
district than any other Congressman--$192 million in the 2008 budget.
I don't know what the unemployment rate is in Johnstown,
Pennsylvania, but around the rest of the Nation it's averaging 9.5
percent. And if he would choose not to spend $200,000 dollars for weed-
whacking along this river basin, maybe we could have more jobs in the
rest of America.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I was just going to make one comment, and
that's about fiscal responsibility. I am delighted that the gentleman
has gotten religion on fiscal responsibility. As I recall, he spent the
last 8 years here witnessing the kinds of tax cuts that have provided
the tax breaks for the wealthiest people in this Nation and now has
brought this Nation to this fiscal crisis that we have and the
indebtedness that we have. I think he must have been missing in action
for these 8 years where we experienced this.
This indebtedness did not occur overnight. I once again urge my
colleagues to vote in opposition to this amendment.
Mr. KINGSTON. Will the gentlelady yield?
Ms. DeLAURO. I'd be happy to yield.
Mr. KINGSTON. I just wanted to say on behalf of the minority members
I had planned to oppose this amendment and do believe that this
research can be very helpful and know that many of the earmarks that
have been in this bill have increased food safety and increased food
supply and created jobs along the way and reduced food costs.
And so there are a lot of things that do kind of catch the eye that
sometimes there is more to it than you can get out in a quick debate on
it. But I do plan to oppose this, and wanted the chairwoman to know
that.
Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have
remaining?
The CHAIR. Fifteen seconds.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I think it's very interesting to get a
lecture from the gentlelady on fiscal responsibility, since she just
voted for a budget that will triple the national debt over the next 10
years. When the deficit was $300 billion and falling, the majority
leader Steny Hoyer called it fiscal child abuse. Here's an earmark to
add $200,000 to fiscal child abuse.
We ought to cut it out. And I urge adoption of my amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will be postponed.
Part C Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Campbell
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part C amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Campbell:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds provided in this Act under the
heading ``National Institute of Food and Agriculture--
Research and Education Activities'' shall be available for
the special grant for Specialty Crops in Indiana, and the
aggregate amount otherwise provided under such heading (and
the portion of such amount specified for special grants) are
each hereby reduced by $235,000.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 609, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Campbell) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would eliminate a $235,000
earmark for Specialty Crops in Indiana, and reduces funding in the
overall bill by that amount. According to the statement from the
sponsor of the earmark, the gentleman from Indiana, this earmark of the
Specialty Crops Research Extension and Training Center at the
Southwest-Purdue Agricultural Center would go to increase their staff
and upgrade equipment for the center.
Mr. Chairman, I'm sure--and I expect we will hear from the gentleman
from Indiana--and I'm sure that he will talk about what he believes the
benefits of this program or this center or the additional equipment
that this earmark would buy is going to be to that center.
But, Mr. Chairman, as has been mentioned by the previous several
speakers, and I'm sure will be mentioned by others, we are in a period
of great fiscal strain, where we have a $2 trillion deficit running
this year, another $1 trillion deficit every year for as far as the eye
can see, and 46 cents of every dollar we spend on the floor of this
House, 46 of every dollar this year will be borrowed.
{time} 2130
Even the Congressional Budget Office just 2 weeks ago said that the
current budget and the current budget trajectory is ``unsustainable.''
Mr. Chairman, given the situation that we're in, given the deficits
we're running, given the debt we're building up, given the amount of
money that we're borrowing, given the spending that we're going
through, shouldn't we be limiting what we're spending now to true
national priorities, true things that are really those things that we
must do and can only do right now rather than things that are designed
for a specific district, specific area or a specific industry? Mr.
Chairman, I would suggest that this particular earmark is one of those
things and does not rise to that level of national and critical
importance that we should borrow another $108,000 from, as was said
before, the Chinese, the Indians, whomever in order to fund this
particular earmark.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
(Mr. ELLSWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. ELLSWORTH. Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the distinguished
chairwoman of the subcommittee for yielding.
I would like to thank her and her colleagues on the Agriculture
appropriations subcommittee for not only approving this this year but
also last year, and I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chair, I got home from Afghanistan 2 days ago; and while I was
there in the Khost province, I was fortunate enough to visit with the
Indiana National Guard. And besides their soldiering duties, some of
other things they were doing was helping the Afghanistan agriculture
farmers to better their practices of farming in Afghanistan. I would
guess that if I asked the 14,000 farmers in Indiana in my district and
if Mr. Campbell asked the 132 farmers in his district, according to the
2007 agriculture census, and I have 9,000 farms in my district and Mr.
Campbell has 72 farms in his district, according to the same document,
that if we asked those farmers in our two respective districts, Should
we spend money in Afghanistan on their agriculture or spend
[[Page H7822]]
it right here in the United States, I'm just going to take a guess that
they might say, let's spend some of it here. And that's what this
amendment would try to preclude.
I'd like to take this opportunity, as Mr. Campbell said, to defend
this program because it was fully funded last year, and I'd ask that it
would be funded this year again. This is the Specialty Crops Research,
Extension, and Training Center at the Southwest-Purdue Agricultural
Center. This project is a collaboration between Purdue University and
Vincennes University. It is housed in Vincennes, Indiana. This farmland
in Knox County, Indiana, is particularly well suited for growing fresh
fruits and vegetables, and the Southwest-Purdue Agricultural Center
provides an important resource for farmers to improve crop quality and
yields and decrease pesticide use.
The request I submitted to the Appropriations Committee would direct
funds, as Mr. Campbell said, to the center for upgrades to their
equipment and in personnel. Mr. Chair, they do a lot of great things
there. This is critical for conducting research on crops in our area. I
also will remind you that where I live in midwest Indiana is within a
day's drive of 40 percent of the American population. Indiana is proud.
We are proud of our farmers, and we're proud to supply food to the
Midwest and across our country. And because approximately 40 percent of
the Nation's population live within a day's drive of that area, we
think it's extremely important to explore all of the possibilities of
that area. And no one does it better than this extension and this
agriculture center.
We all know the value of adding fresh fruits and vegetables to our
diets, and Americans are struggling right now with obesity and related
health issues. Proper diet and nutrition habits are critical components
to making this country healthier. New expanded fruit and vegetable
production is extremely critical. I think it's important to note that
this is not new funding. This is in the USDA's appropriated funds. So
who's better to say where this money might be spent, the Congressman
who drives the streets and the roads and the highways and on the farms
and talks to the farmers and the ranchers in southern Indiana or a
bureaucrat sitting in a booth somewhere in Washington, D.C., that says,
``These people get this and these people get that''? I think it's the
Congressman and the farmers from Indiana.
Ms. DeLAURO. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, as I said, I appreciate the gentleman
from Indiana's eloquent defense of this, and I understand his point.
But there are roughly 400 earmarks in this bill; and at some point, Mr.
Chairman, we've got to stop. And one of the things the gentleman
mentioned was that we're helping farmers in Afghanistan farm and should
we do this or do that? But the fact is, we're doing both. And the fact
is that many times in this Chamber we decide to spend money on
everything. Let's spend money on this farm here and this farm here, and
this crop here and this crop there, and this State here and this State
there, and this country here and this country there. And it's that kind
of spending where we aren't making the choices to spend on some things
and not on others, where we aren't making the decision to spend within
our means, where we aren't deciding that, we're not going to borrow the
money, we're not going to tax them more money. We're going to take what
we have, and we're going to it allocate that as efficiently as we can
to the places we think are the most important and not just do it to
everything has got stop, Mr. Chairman. I would suggest to my friends on
the other side of the aisle, I understand that perhaps you think this
is important, but what's more important is $2 trillion in additional
debt this year, $13 trillion in debt overall, 46 cents on every dollar
being borrowed, and most of it being borrowed from foreign nations and
that it doesn't ever stop. According to the President's budget, it goes
on and on and on. We have got to stop that.
I would just suggest that maybe we start with things like this. It
isn't about whether the bureaucracy spends this or not. This bill would
save that $235,000 and not borrow any more money. Whether it's here or
somewhere else, at some point, Mr. Chairman, we have to begin to
control the spending and not borrow and deficit spend so much. I just
hope if we can't start tonight, let's start tomorrow.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. How much time do I have?
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Ms. DeLAURO. My colleague Mr. Ellsworth talked about this project and
has defended it more than adequately. But considering the openness and
the scrutiny that has gone into the process this year, I would urge my
colleagues to defeat this amendment and continue the good efforts of
the proposal that Mr. Ellsworth has made and the whole issue of
specialty crops. I share that interest in specialty crops coming from
the State of Connecticut where, in fact, that is what we do; and the
importance of the research in that area is critical. Support his
effort, and oppose the gentleman from California's amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from California (Mr. Campbell).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from California will be
postponed.
Part D Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Flake
Mr. FLAKE. I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part D amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Flake:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds provided in this Act under the
heading ``Agricultural Research Service--Salaries and
Expenses'' shall be available for the Foundry Sand By-
Products Utilization project in Beltsville, Maryland, and the
aggregate amount otherwise provided under such heading is
hereby reduced by $638,000.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 609, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Chair.
Mr. Chairman, I know that it's a custom to address the Chair. I see
the Speaker of the House is in the Chamber. If I could address her
directly, what I would implore her to do is to--when we have the
defense bill on the floor later this month, please make an open rule.
Allow us the opportunity to challenge earmarks in the defense bill and
then not limit us to just one or two or three. That defense bill will
include literally hundreds and hundreds of earmarks that are no-bid
contracts to private companies. And unless we have the ability to
challenge them, they will go virtually unvetted because we know from
sad experience they have not been vetted by the Appropriations
Committee in the past.
I will just draw your attention to a headline in today's Roll Call,
``Justice Department this week filed criminal charges against a defense
contractor who has received millions of dollars worth of earmarks.''
There will be another headline tomorrow and likely again the following
day. We have investigations swirling outside. We have to be able to
challenge these earmarks and to point out why it's wrong for this body
to allow Members to earmark to their campaign contributors.
So while the Speaker is in the Chamber, I would just implore her--if
I could speak to her directly--to allow an open rule, allow more debate
on this subject.
But to the merits of the challenge to this earmark, this amendment
would remove $638,000 in funding for the Beltsville, Maryland,
Agricultural Research Center and reduce the overall cost of the bill by
a commensurate amount.
According to the report accompanying this bill, this earmark is
described as the, quote, Foundry Sand By-Products Utilization in
Beltsville, Maryland.'' But if you look at the table that is in the
report for this bill, it says that that research project that is going
to the Foundry Sand By-Product Utilization is actually completed. So
[[Page H7823]]
it's a bit confusing as to what this earmark is actually for. There is
a little different language in the certification letter and in the
table that accompanies this bill. So I would ask the sponsor of this
earmark to explain why we're earmarking funds seemingly for a project
that has already been completed.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition to this
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Although the gentleman could not be here tonight, he has
provided me with the following information:
This amendment seeks to eliminate funding for a research project at
the Environmental Management and Byproduct Utilization Laboratory at
the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center. This amendment would
deprive taxpayers of the expertise acquired by Federal researchers and
scientists. I just want to reiterate here. These are Federal employees
at a federally owned research center. The effort is to study the
potential reuses of one industrial byproduct--sand used in metal
casting. The experts have enabled us through research currently being
reviewed by their peers to discover ways to deal with the over 7
million tons of foundry sands that are estimated to be disposed of in
our landfills annually. I think we need to continue to use their
expertise.
There is considerable need for ongoing funding to study the
beneficial uses of other industrial byproducts in agriculture. This
includes discovering ways to prevent phosphorous from reaching our
waterways, to improve soil characteristics and in sequestering carbon.
The research also helps us to find ways to create new products from
direct agricultural waste materials. Scientists, for example, as I
understand this, have found a way to take carotene from chicken
feathers, an example of a poultry byproduct to make high-quality
biodegradable plastics for the horticultural industry. Finding these
new uses not only would benefit American agricultural producers, it
assists the American public and the environment by avoiding
increasingly expensive options of sending these materials to a
landfill. We need to allow these funds to be flexible as opposed to
being directed at one specific material. For example, foundry sands.
Since we cannot always be aware in advance of potential new beneficial
uses of various industrially and agriculturally derived materials. I
ask my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. The gentlelady mentioned that these are Federal employees
in a Federal institution and a Federal facility that would be receiving
these earmarks and has great trust that they will do the right thing in
executing this earmark. I just find that curious that the main reason
that we have earmarks, supposedly--we continually are told--is because
we're not going to let these faceless bureaucrats at Federal agencies
decide where to spend our money. Yet we're saying that they can't make
those decisions but they can carry out the earmark. I can tell you why
it's done and why you will have both the minority and the majority in
this House today on the Appropriations Committee oppose this amendment.
It's because if you look in the ag amendments this year, 64 percent of
the money, of the share of earmarks, 67 percent of the dollar value are
going to either appropriators or powerful Members, either chairmen or
ranking minority members of committees.
{time} 2145
This is fairly consistent across all the appropriations bills we will
do this year. It is a spoils system. That may be a pejorative way to
say it, but I don't know how else to say it when 64 percent of the
earmarks in this legislation will go to about 24 percent of the Members
in this body. We continually say, like I said, that these faceless
bureaucrats shouldn't be deciding where our money goes. If you are a
rank-and-file Member in this House, I would take my chances with a
faceless bureaucrat because you would probably fare better than you
would before the Appropriations Committee. And this is how it is year
after year after year.
Gratefully, we know it now because we have enough transparency where
we know who is requesting the earmark. But this isn't right, and there
are other worthy projects that might deserve this funding, but because
a powerful Member is able to request it, then it goes there. And this
is, I think, the fourth time that money has been appropriated for this
project, which, according to the Web site of the requesting Member, the
project has been completed. So I'm not sure exactly where the money is
going if the project has been already completed. I guess it is starting
again.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. How much time remains, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 2\1/2\ minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. The funding, just to address that, enables those who
have worked on the project to continue their successes. Look, I do not
pretend to be a scientist, and I would not pretend to tell the
scientists how to pursue their research. Quite frankly, coming from the
subcommittee in which I serve on Labor, Health and Human Services and
Education, where we do provide funding for the National Institutes of
Health, we do not--again, I'm not a scientist. We do not tell them how,
where, and what to focus the resources on or a particular illness.
As is often the case, research will uncover other discoveries. Look,
I will give you a very good example. There is research that has been
done with Taxol, which is at the NIH, which was presumed to be
effective in helping women who were suffering fourth-stage ovarian
cancer, which is a time when it is almost irreversible. But as
researchers began to develop research on Taxol, they began to find that
its properties were also useful for breast cancer and other types of
cancers. So what research does is it opens up a whole variety of
avenues, and that is where discoveries are made.
I think we should leave these kinds of efforts to the scientists.
This project is producing, and it will continue to produce with the aid
of this funding, peer-reviewed research. My colleague and I believe
this will be of great benefit.
Once again, as I say, we have been very open. There has been a great
deal of scrutiny that has gone into this process this year. There have
been new requirements that Chairman Obey put into practice to continue
our efforts to ensure that the appropriations process is open, that it
is transparent, and that it is worthy of the public's trust. In terms
of vetting each request with the agency under whose jurisdiction the
earmark would fall, there has been public disclosure on Members' Web
sites, and the committee made earmark lists available after the
subcommittee consideration on the bill on June 11, nearly 4 weeks ago.
And as indicated in our report, the funding earmarks in the Agriculture
appropriations bill in 2008, 2009, were well below 2006.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired. The gentleman
from Arizona has 30 seconds.
Mr. FLAKE. I agree with the gentlelady when she says there is more
transparency in the system now. That is true. That is a good thing. But
we haven't drained the swamp. We simply know how deep the mud we are
now in is. That is the problem. And the problem is when we trust the
Federal agencies to carry out an earmark like this but we don't trust
them to direct it.
We should set parameters. We should tell the Federal agencies, Here
is how you should distribute the money, instead of saying, All right,
I'm a powerful member of the Appropriations Committee or of leadership
and I'm going to direct that money to my district.
I urge support of the amendment, and I yield back.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be postponed.
[[Page H7824]]
Part D Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Flake
Mr. FLAKE. I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part D amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Flake:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds provided in this Act under the
heading ``National Institute of Food and Agriculture--
Research and Education Activities'' shall be available for
the special grant for the Agriculture Energy Innovation
Center in Georgia, and the aggregate amount otherwise
provided under such heading (and the portion of such amount
specified for special grants) are each hereby reduced by
$1,000,000.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 609, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would remove $1 million from
the University of Georgia's Agricultural Energy Innovation Center,
located in Tifton, Georgia, and reduce the overall cost of the
legislation by a commensurate amount. According to the sponsor's Web
site, this funding would be used to advance farm efficiencies by
coupling advanced information communication and control technologies
with improved plant materials, byproducts use and energy capture and
conversion techniques.
That sounds pretty impressive. I'm sure a lot of that is going on.
The sponsor states this earmark is a good use of taxpayer dollars
because the research and the demonstration project will facilitate the
rapid advancement of new tools to increase the net production of energy
from agriculture.
There is a lot of this going on around the country. We have
appropriated a lot of money in a lot of bills to do this kind of thing,
and it just strikes me as folly to, in a bill like this, just to be
able to direct money for a Member to say, All right, the university in
my district is going to get this research money. They won't have to
compete for it on merit. They won't have to compete for it because I'm
going to earmark it, and they are going to get it when maybe a
university elsewhere, the University of Nebraska, the University of
Minnesota or University of Arizona, might want to compete for that
project but they can't because the money is earmarked and it goes
specifically to this university.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for bringing this amendment to
the floor. As one who is very involved in this earmark, I now have the
opportunity to discuss it in detail. This is a program that works on
future food production and technology by decreasing the cost of
production and looking at ways to have some fuel independence. But what
I wanted to emphasize to the gentleman, as he doesn't seem to have a
problem with the merit of the project as much as the process of
directing it to the University of Georgia, and I want to point out that
the University of Georgia is a land grant university with one of the
oldest agricultural colleges in the country. And they do compete for
competitive grants on a regular basis, and they do get competitive
grants. When they have put skin in the game, Congress has, in fact, not
just for the University of Georgia, but for a lot of universities, put
some matching money in it.
Now, in this case, the money is really not matching as the college
itself has already put in about $5 million. And they have been working
on this over the years, but they have gotten $500,000 from private
foundations in 2010 and 2011. They will get $800,000 from private
foundations. And then they have State money, and then they have
university money in it. So it is not something where the $1 million is
a new start-up for a program that is not out there. It is something
that they have been going after.
Here is something from the State of Georgia, the Agriculture Energy
Innovation Center, which we call GEFA. It is a letter in support of it,
and of course, we do have something from the university itself
supporting that the goal is in line with what colleges of agriculture
and land grant universities do. But that is why the money went to the
University of Georgia, and the Tifton campus is where they do much of
their agricultural research.
I would invite the gentleman to come down and visit sometime and let
me explain why the good people of Arizona should fund something like
that in the State of Georgia, because often it is, well, why should
everybody in the country support something that is going to a
particular State? But when the end product is something that will help
the whole Nation, that is what happens.
It is precision agriculture. One of the problems we have right now
down on the farm is that you've got a lot of groups who are saying, All
right, you're causing too much pollution. You're overfertilizing.
You're using too much energy.
So, what we have here is a land grant university addressing those
very issues which will not be proprietary in their results. It will be
something that is shared throughout the Nation for other farmers to
say, Now, look, here is how you can do it using high technology, using
precision agriculture, saving lots of money and utilize those
techniques all over the country.
With that, I will reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. According to the Georgia Department of Economic
Development, Georgia currently has over $2 billion worth of active
renewable energy-related products and is a leader in the bioenergy
revolution. I have no doubt that that is true. And because that is true
and because if this Agriculture Energy Innovation Center truly has
merit, then they should be able to compete for these grants with other
land grant colleges, with other universities, and with other
organizations that are doing this same research.
My question is why, if you have such a deserving, respectable program
like this, why do we need to earmark these dollars at all? Surely they
can compete for it and do well. But why do we circumvent the process of
competition simply because we are on the committee or we are a powerful
chairman or a ranking minority member or somebody who can get this
funding and earmark it so that nobody else can compete for it? That
simply doesn't make sense.
If we don't like the way that the agencies are disbursing this money,
then, by golly, we ought to address it. That is our job as Members of
Congress. We have the power of the purse. But, instead, to say we don't
like how that faceless bureaucrat is going to direct the spending so we
are going to create a parallel process in Congress where we can just
circumvent the process and earmark that money for our own university,
that is simply not right, and it has gotten out of hand in this
Congress.
Some people will point out that this year earmarks are down in this
bill. That is a great thing, but they are not down far enough. We need
a process that is competitive, that is based on merit and not based on
the spoils system.
Again, I repeat, in this bill, 24 percent of the Members of this body
will control more than two-thirds of the money that is directed through
earmarks. Now, that is not because there is more merit in those
programs. It is because we have powerful Members in those positions.
And you can't make the argument that, oh, this is a land grant college
or this is a deserving institution. If they were, they could compete
for those dollars. But instead, we are circumventing that process of
competition and awarding by earmark through the political process.
Particularly when we have the kind of deficit that we have today, this
legislation would strike this funding and reduce the cost of the bill
by a commensurate amount.
How can any fiscal conservative say that we don't want to do that in
this year when we are running a deficit that could reach $2 trillion? I
would say it is time. And if we can't do it here, where will we do it?
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, how much time is left?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia has 90 seconds remaining.
[[Page H7825]]
Ms. DeLAURO. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
Ms. DeLAURO. Very quickly, I just want to tell the gentleman from
Georgia that I will join him in urging a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentlewoman.
And I want to say to my friend, number one, I am working on a number
of amendments that we have offered in the subcommittee and in the full
committee. Some were accepted, some were not. I have one that we will
be discussing in a few minutes, a $400 million reduction in the
spending in this. And I have to say, it kills me to say this just
about, but I have to hand it to the Democrats. In 2006, this bill had
$865 million worth of earmarks. Today's bill has $219 million. And I
know the gentleman will say that is still too many, but one of the
things that is real important is that there has been a reduction in
earmarks.
In 2008, this bill had 623 earmarks, now it has 321. And it is still
too much, but one of the things we still hear often is the proverbial
Defense Department's $500 hammer. Well, that is because there are so
many problems in defense procurement. But it is the same in all
branches of government. So I don't think that Congress should just
blindly turn everything over to bureaucracies who are going to come up
with competitive grant programs. I do think it is proper for Congress
to have a role in congressionally directed spending. But I want to
emphasize that of a $5 million project, the University of Georgia has
come up with $4 million, so they have put their skin in the game.
With that, I will yield the balance of my time.
{time} 2200
Mr. FLAKE. May I inquire as to the time remaining.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. FLAKE. I am glad to hear the gentleman is introducing an
amendment later that will save $400 million. I will gladly vote for the
gentleman's amendment. I hope we will vote for mine.
We need to not only save $400 million; we need to save another
million here. Why not, if it will reduce the cost of the bill by a
commensurate amount, why wouldn't we take every opportunity to lower
the deficit that we have and to pay down the debt?
We are in an awful fix here, and we are digging deeper and deeper
with a bill like this that increases the overall spending by, I think,
12 percent from last year to this. Why not take every opportunity to
cut the spending.
This is an opportunity. I plan to vote for every amendment that will
cut any funding from this bill. But, please, if we have an opportunity
here to cut $1 million, I would hope that we would do so.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be postponed.
Part D Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Flake
Mr. FLAKE. I have an amendment at the desk designated as part D No.
12.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part D amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Flake:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds provided in this Act under the
heading ``National Institute of Food and Agriculture--
Research and Education Activities'' shall be available for
special grants for Potato Research in Idaho, Oregon, and
Washington, and the aggregate amount otherwise provided under
such heading (and the portion of such amount specified for
special grants) are each hereby reduced by $1,037,000.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 609, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. This amendment would remove slightly more than $1 million
for potato research in Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and it would reduce
the overall cost of the bill by a consistent amount.
Now, if you like earmarks, then this spud's for you, I guess. But if
you don't, and if you think that we need to save some money somewhere,
then I would urge support for this amendment.
According to one of the sponsors of the earmark, the potato industry
generates about $3.4 billion throughout the State of Washington. In
Idaho, the potato industry contributes nearly half a billion dollars in
wages. Potato sales equal about $7 billion annually.
According to the USDA, last year potato farmers received nearly $3.9
billion for their crop. Now, how is it that this industry that receives
billions of dollars a year isn't expected to invest in its own
research? I know that it does some, but why are the taxpayers year
after year ponying up more money to a $7 billion industry? This is a
drop in the bucket to the industry, but a million dollars is a lot of
money to the average American family.
According to one of the sponsors' Web sites, every dollar invested in
potato research yields a $39 return. I would submit that for those of
us who believe in the free market, that any dollar invested that yields
a $39 return, then private industry will do well investing in its own
research. We don't have to ask the taxpayer to pile on.
Potatoes were first introduced in the United States in the 1600s.
They are now the fourth largest food crop in the world. They have
sustained nations in time of famine due to their ability to survive in
many climates, and they are inexpensive to harvest. Seventy-nine
percent of U.S. households consume potatoes at least 1.8 times a week.
I am included in that number.
I just don't know why we are asking, again, the taxpayer, to fund
research over and over and over again for an industry that can clearly
support itself here.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KINGSTON. With that, I will yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
I do admire my friend from Arizona. His persistence on this is
absolutely incredible, and I share a lot of the goals that he is trying
to accomplish.
I really think that the gentleman's problem is not so much with
individual programs and maybe his problem is with the Ag-Research
Service, and maybe the gentleman ought to introduce a bill to get rid
of the Ag-Research Service, and that would probably take care of all
the underlying problems.
But the point is the Ag-Research Service has been involved in
research of a number of crops, including potatoes, for a number of
years. This does go to the Northwest. Fifty percent of the potatoes
that are grown in the United States are grown in Idaho, Washington and
Oregon. There are three State universities that are involved.
University of Idaho, Washington State University and Oregon State
university submit funds for this research with these matching dollars.
In addition, the potato commissions in each of those respective
States match those dollars. And as a result, we have developed
varieties of potatoes now that are more disease resistant. I think the
tonnage, for example, in the last 50 years has increased greatly in
Washington State because of the new varieties, potatoes they have
brought on the market. In fact, 100,000 acres are these new varieties
that people may or may not like.
And, again, the issue is, okay, maybe we shouldn't have any research
at all in government funded. That's another debate. And the gentleman
had mentioned that only powerful Members of Congress, you know, get
these earmarks. I would mention to the gentleman, before I came to
Congress 15 years ago, this program was in existence and the funding
this year is precisely level with last year. This is not new funding.
[[Page H7826]]
So I would suggest to the gentleman that in this case, with potatoes,
they are not a program crop.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. KINGSTON. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. When potato farmers go out and plant
their crops, they are probably the biggest gamblers in the world. And
yet they don't mind putting some of their hard-earned cash when they
make a profit into this research, because that may make them an even
bigger gambler next year with one of their varieties.
So I respect the gentleman with what he is trying to do, but his
issue may not be with individual crops. And this amendment goes to an
individual crop in my area. Maybe his issue is with Ag-Research Service
in general, that's a matter for another debate.
Mr. FLAKE. My issue is with overall spending, one; two, is with the
need to earmark. If this funding is receiving earmarks, basically,
about a million dollars a year, when clearly you have an industry that
is capable of funding its own research, now, I agree with the
gentleman's point about this isn't one of the program crops; it's not
wheat not corn. It's not a crop that gets massive subsidies under the
farm bill. We shouldn't be doing those subsidies.
But two wrongs don't make a right. We shouldn't say, well, hey, we
are subsidizing those, so we ought to bring some subsidy over here as
well. The truth is we can't afford either of them now. We have a
deficit of nearly $2 trillion this year. When I came to this
institution just 8 years ago, our entire Federal budget was just around
$2 trillion. Now we are going to have a deficit that equals that
amount.
Can't we in this year at least say, you know, maybe we ought to cut
back on potato research just a little. Maybe we ought to cut back on
other earmarks in this bill because we are simply adding to the debt,
adding to the deficit more than we can take.
So it's not just that I have an issue with agricultural research
spending, but I do have an issue with the way it's allocated. Because,
as I have already demonstrated, this is awarded based on a spoils
system.
When just 14 percent of the Members in this body, those who are
represented on the Appropriations Committee, direct more than half of
the earmark spending in this bill, you have got a spoils system. I
don't know what else to call it.
And that's one issue with this bill and why I am offering these
amendments. And, two, if we don't like the way the Federal agencies are
doing it, then we should direct them to do it differently. We should
set parameters, but we shouldn't set up a parallel system and say, you
award it that way, but we are going to direct ours this way.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KINGSTON. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
Mr. WU. I thank the gentleman.
And the reason why the gentleman from Arizona's amendment makes no
sense at all is because the free market underinvests in public goods,
public goods like education, like roads and research. The market will
not put enough money into research, and the potato research program
that Mr. Flake's amendment intends to cut has been highly successful in
a multi-State effort in order to develop new commercial potato
varieties.
The potatoes released from this program account for about 16 percent
of current production. And the program not only creates new potato
varieties for consumers; it also improves the nutritional value of
potatoes and increases crop yields. In addition, this project provides
significant environmental benefits, including reduction in the need for
pesticides, water and fertilizer; and it fits into our overall goal of
reducing energy consumption and increasing our production of the goods
and services that we need.
Mr. FLAKE. I find it a curious assumption that the free market will
not invest in research when one of the sponsors' Web sites, as I
mentioned, states that every dollar invested in potato research results
in a $39 return.
Now, any, any hedge fund, any investor of any type.
Mr. WU. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FLAKE. You bet, sure.
Mr. WU. The reason why the free market will underinvest, even though
given that rate of return, it's whoever pays for the research doesn't
reap the benefits. It's a public good. It's a basic of capitalist
economic theory which the gentleman should understand.
Mr. FLAKE. I don't understand. I am sorry. If the return on
investment, if the potato industry gets a return on an investment of
$39 for every dollar returned, then it does reap some of the benefits.
Yes, that potato is a public good, but it's also a private profit,
unless we have socialized potato farming here, and I don't think we
have.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. FLAKE. I urge support of the amendment.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. I appreciate the gentleman yielding and I do
want to speak in opposition of this amendment, although I do support
the gentleman from Arizona's effort to shine the late of day on
spending, and I think that these debates are very important as we are
making these decisions.
As has been mentioned, the funding in this bill does go for ongoing
agricultural research, potatoes specifically in this amendment, and it
does have a significant impact on the economy for the State of
Washington and the Pacific Northwest. The ability of potato farmers to
keep potato crops healthy and disease free, especially given the
constant change in weather conditions and the arrival of new pests and
disease, is an ongoing battle.
Yet through breeding research and variety development, potato growers
have access to critical research that enables them to identify the
strongest varieties for growth, production, storage and processing.
Like most of us here, I am concerned about out-of-control spending. But
I am also concerned about these tough economic times, and we should
support measures that are going to grow the economy. This research does
exactly that.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be postponed.
Part B Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Kingston
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part B amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Kingston:
Page 74, after line 22, insert the following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to administer, or pay the salary or expenses of
personnel for the administration of, the provision of
broadband loans or loan guarantees made using authorities
under this Act on or before September 15, 2010.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 609, the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Kingston) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, for many years the funding level for
broadband programs or Rural Loan Program was handled by the Rural
Utility Service in the Department of Agriculture. That funding was
about $400 million. With the stimulus package that we passed in
February, $790 billion package, there was about $7 billion for
broadband grants and loan programs.
Two and a half billion of that money went to the Department of
Agriculture, and the rest went to a brand-new program which really did
the same thing and duplicated what is done in the Department of
Agriculture. It all should have gone there. But if you think about a
program going from 400 million to about 7 billion, that's not a plus-
up. That's winning the lottery.
Now, I can only focus on $2.5 trillion, and you can't even do that
because that's already in the stimulus bill already passed into law,
but we can't focus on the $400 million.
[[Page H7827]]
{time} 2215
What this amendment does, and frankly if I could have offered a
cleaner amendment, I would have just had a straight cut of the $400
million. But what this does, it is similar; it says you can't use the
$400 million that is in this until we have used the $2.5 billion that
has already been passed into law.
The reason why that is important is when the stimulus bill was
passed, there was so much talk about we are going to use this money
immediately, shovel-ready projects, jobs will be created. And as we
know, that was when the unemployment level was 8 percent and now it is
nearly 10 percent. It has not stopped the bleed and job loss. But the
fact is that $2.5 billion is still sitting there, and yet we are coming
along now and giving another $400 million.
What this amendment says is we can't use the $400 million until the
$2.5 billion is paid down. I urge support of the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, rural broadband connects people and
communities, gives them access to information on everything from health
and housing and education to public safety and economic development. It
also gives people access to opportunity.
As the Internet continues to grow and develop, and as it plays a
larger and larger role in driving our 21st century economy, we simply
cannot afford to let rural areas languish behind the rest of the
country.
An earlier generation of leaders used Federal investment to help wire
rural areas for electricity. What we are trying to do is give citizens
in rural areas the tools they need to compete and excel in this
economy.
By prohibiting funds from being used to administer or pay the salary
of personnel who would administer USDA's broadband loans, the
gentleman's amendment would gut this critical program at a time when we
need to redouble our efforts in this area.
Let's be clear. In proposing to stop the administration of loans, the
gentleman is also asking Congress to stop critical oversight and
monitoring of existing borrowers, functions that the government cannot
afford to lose, especially if we are to ensure that taxpayers' dollars
are well spent.
No one can deny the need to expand access. The United States is
currently 15th in the world in providing broadband service. Only 38
percent of those living in rural America now have broadband at home,
compared to 55 percent of all adult Americans. In rural communities, 24
percent of dial-up users said broadband wasn't available where they
lived, more than 7 times those in cities.
This is not a partisan issue. There is unanimous support for
increased broadband service to rural communities. Few people disagree.
Expanding broadband is the type of Federal program that cannot only
connect rural areas to the global community, but also generate great
growth in rural America and pay very big dividends for our Nation.
The bill makes important investments in rural broadband, provides
$418 million for broadband loans and grants. It includes an
appropriation of $81.6 million, an increase above $18 million of the
amount available for 2009.
It includes distance learning. The funding is there for distance
learning and telemedicine grants, for broadband telecommunications loan
subsidy. This is an investment that requires national leadership, which
is why we included a significant amount in the recovery program. It was
$2.5 billion to rural utility services and more than $7 billion in
total. There is already a substantial demand for the funding. The
funding increases in this legislation help to build on the investment
that was made in the Recovery Act, and it will help us to realize a
strong economic return. For every dollar invested in broadband, the
economy sees a tenfold return on that investment.
As the Farm Bureau noted regarding new investments in broadband, the
$7.2 billion allocated for broadband will help rural communities
participate in a recovering economy, while modernizing rural education
and health care. It creates an economic opportunity for rural
Americans, allows farmers and ranchers to take advantage of the
technology to help them remain profitable and competitive.
I do not think this is the time to be gutting this program,
particularly given the delicate state of our economic recovery. We need
to do everything we can right now to promote rather than stifle
economic innovation in small towns. I urge my colleagues to oppose the
Kingston amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to my friend, the
chairwoman of the committee, that is a very eloquent argument for the
use of a broadband loan program, but it has nothing to do with this
amendment because the broadband loan program is not under trial here.
But let me explain it this way to the Members who are not on the
committee. I love going to Ryan's, and they probably have Ryan's in
Connecticut, but Ryan's is one of those all-you-can-eat buffets. You go
through the line and there is fried chicken and there is fried fish,
and fried catfish, probably imported, who knows? There are all kinds of
vegetables and desserts. You go through and you fill your plate up, and
then you are allowed for the $8 price to go back and get some more
food.
Well, let's just think going through the line was the stimulus
program, Mr. Chairman. We filled up our plates, and I often found
myself as a father of four saying to my kids, you can't go get more
food until you finish what is on your plate. It just makes sense. Go
ahead and eat the four pieces of fried chicken that you got before you
go and grab another one that you don't have and you don't need. That is
all this amendment is. It is not a trial of broadband. Broadband is
funded by $2.5 billion under the RUS in the USDA under existing law,
period. So $2.5 billion.
And all I am saying to the oftentimes gluttonous government here in
Washington, D.C., is, don't go back through the buffet line until you
have consumed what you've got. And when you have emptied that plate,
then you can go back and get that fifth piece of fried chicken in the
form of $400 million for broadband loans. At that point I don't know
who we will be loaning the money to because, as I said earlier, there
is another $3.5 billion in another program in another department. But
that, too, is a matter of law, and that is not under scrutiny either.
The only thing I am saying is what I have said to my four children
over the years when we would go to the Ryan buffet: Don't get more food
on your plate until you finish what you've got. I urge support of this.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would be very much against the
interest of rural America. There is no community in this country that
will have a decent economic future if they cannot be competitive by
being attached to modern technology, and that certainly includes
broadband.
The gentleman has mentioned the economic recovery package and the
funds that have been appropriated there, and he has made much of the
fact that that money has not gone out. We are only 4 months into a
program that is supposed to last 30 months, and so I urge the gentleman
to wait a few months to see what happens on that project. I think you
will see money moving out.
The only other point I would make is this: If you think there is too
much money for broadband in the budget, the worst place in the world to
take it out of is the USDA. When this program was first proposed in the
stimulus package, the Obama administration proposed putting all of the
money in the Commerce Department. People like me objected because we
know the history of rural America. We understand why REAs had to be
created to go into rural areas because the big power companies wouldn't
bother, because they couldn't make enough money going into rural areas.
It's the same score now. Your big companies don't want to go into rural
areas without subsidy on broadband. The fact is you can trust the
Agriculture Department to focus
[[Page H7828]]
much more on the needs of rural America than you can the Commerce
Department. That's why we put the additional money in. And to take $400
million out of the Agriculture Department now would be a major mistake
if you care about the future economic health of rural America.
Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman.
You know, I think this is truly about the economic revitalization of
a part of the country that has been so sorely lacking, and the
application process--
The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to my friend to finish
her sentence.
Ms. DeLAURO. Well, I was just saying that the process on the economic
recovery package, the application process is underway. It began at the
beginning of this month. That money is going out. The demand is up for
broadband. Let's give rural America a fighting chance.
Mr. KINGSTON. Let me say this, representing a very rural district, a
district where you can't get cell phone coverage, and a lot of the
wireless technology is in already, I support what is going on. I agree
with the chairman; it would have been nice for all of the money to go
into RUS and not the Department of Commerce because it was an existing
infrastructure for making this loan program.
The only thing I am saying is you don't get the new money until you
have spent the existing money.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will be postponed.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms.
Kosmas) having assumed the chair, Mr. Snyder, Chair of the Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2997) making
appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.
____________________