Medicare Part D Drug Class Protection Act of 2007

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, it's my intent to offer a number of earmark limitation amendments to the FY 2008 Agriculture appropriation bill.

In offering these earmark limitation amendments, I hope that my colleagues will join me in finally grabbing the reins on runaway earmark spending, and if you will pardon the pun, plant the seed of fiscal discipline in the appropriation process.

In its present form, this bill is under veto threat because it jumps the rails of the President's plan to have a balanced budget by 2012 by close to $1 billion. Part of the $1 billion increase in spending over last year's levels is caused by over 400 earmarks in the bill worth over $300 million that direct taxpayer dollars to congressionally selected projects.

As my colleagues have heard me say a few too many times, I am sure, passing appropriation bills that contain hundreds of earmarks worth millions of dollars that are simply noted by phrases in the committee report shortchanges the legislative process of authorization, appropriation and oversight. The earmarking process is fraught with a lack of transparency, fiscal responsibility and equity for taxpayers, all too often rewarding the districts of powerful Members of Congress in the Appropriations Committee at the expense of the rest of the body.

Let me just note that, according to a review of the bill in a report by Taxpayers for Common Sense, members of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee and party leadership, who make up 5 percent of the House, will take home one-third of the dollar value of agricultural earmarks, nearly $100 million.

If you assume that earmarks with multiple sponsors are shared equally, members of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee and party leadership will send an average of about 4 million earmarked dollars back to their districts.

In contrast, if you look at the remaining earmarked funds and distribute them evenly over the remaining 400-plus House districts, at best they would value slightly less than $500,000. As I have said repeatedly, we are creating winners and losers here.

I'm usually referring to industries that are refunded by the earmarks. But it is true also here in Congress, if you are a seasoned Member in a position of influence, you typically get a lot more. It is simply not right for all the high-minded purpose we give to the contemporary practice of earmarks, talking about Article 1 of the Constitution and the authority it gives us, to then turn around and the leadership and the members of the Appropriations Subcommittee that control the bill get so much more than anyone else. It hardly seems fair. It hardly seems right.

In particular, this amendment would prohibit $878,046 in Federal funds from being used for catfish genome research in Auburn, Alabama, and would reduce the cost of the bill by a commensurate amount. I think that this is definitely one earmark that the taxpayers would love to throw back.

According to the earmark description in the certification letter, the funding would go to Auburn University ``to help continue important research into the genomic behavior of catfish in order to resist and cope with virulent disease strains.'' It appears to me that the earmark is intended to make a genetic map of catfish.

Mr. Chairman, there are so many earmarks in this bill related to genetic research, I feel I am on some kind of farm-based CSI episode. Unfortunately, this isn't a creative drama. This spending is far too real. This seems to be a perennial earmark. It has received over

$1 million in the last 3 fiscal years alone.

Where is the Federal nexus here? Why are we funding catfish research and not trout research? What about sunfish out there? Don't they deserve something? How do we choose here? How do we choose which university gets the funding? It is simply an arbitrary process based on your position on a committee or in the Congress.

Mr. Chairman, that seems wrong to me.

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

May I inquire as to the time remaining.

Let me just say there is over at the Department of Agriculture something called the Agricultural Research Service, or ARS, account, and it is being funded at over $1 billion for fiscal year 2008. Now, we may not like the programs they choose to fund. If we don't like it and we don't think they have a good process, we should exercise the oversight that we are supposed to exercise and change it. But to circumvent that process and say because you may not have given us a grant in one particular year then we are simply going to go around you and earmark, that simply seems wrong.

We are getting away from the authorization, appropriation, oversight program and process that has been the hallmark of this Congress forever. With earmarking, the contemporary process of earmarking, we are circumventing that and we do very little oversight of the Federal agencies, because we are seeking to compete with them.

We set up a program over there and we say you have a merit-based program, a competitive grant program, and then, when they don't choose what we want to, we circumvent it.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would eliminate $628,843 for the Grape Genetics Program at Cornell University and reduce the cost of the bill by a corresponding amount.

Mr. Chairman, it would seem that Congress is a one-stop shop for the wine industry. There is in this bill here $628,843 earmarked for the Grape Genetics Program, as mentioned, in addition to a $2.6 million earmark to actually construct the Center for Grape Genetics.

The earmark description in the certification letter submitted to the committee by the sponsor of the earmark informs us that this earmark would fund a full-time grape geneticist at the Grape Genetics Research Unit and support the viability of the grape and wine industry.

Now, according to some, the wine industry faces a growing demand for new technologies and varieties in order to be a player in the global marketplace. I don't doubt that at all. I don't deny that research and development is important to the wine and grape industry. I simply question why the Federal Government is expected to foot the bill for a private industry.

According to recent reports, direct sales of wine to consumers are up 30 percent this year. Let me repeat that. Direct sales of wine to consumers are up 30 percent this year.

According to a study unveiled by the Congressional Wine Caucus earlier this year, the U.S. wine, grape and grape products industry contributes more than $160 billion annually to the U.S. economy, $160 billion annually.

This study indicated that the industry supports more than 1 million full-time equivalent positions and that there are more than 900,000 grape-bearing acres in the U.S. In addition, according to the 2006 report by the USDA, New York has 239 wineries currently, as opposed to 17 in 1976. I would submit that this looks like an industry that is thriving.

If the Federal Government is going to support genetic research for one industry, why doesn't the Federal Government provide support for all of them? What mechanism is there to stop Congress from funding mold research on gourmet cheese, or soil research for truffle farming? Where does it stop? Where is the Federal nexus here? Why do we continue to fund these profitable industries?

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

Mr. Chairman, let me just say, nobody questions the validity or the importance of research. Every industry needs to do it, and do a lot of it. But we have a lot of high-tech industries that are vital to this country. Why aren't we funding a company like Intel, for example, for issues related to testing of circuit boards? That is important. They face international competition.

Why do we say all right here, only we are going to fund grape research? Also, when we have a program over at the Department of Agriculture that we fund to the tune of a billion dollars this year to actually provide grants in this area, and still it is not enough. Still we say we have to earmark funds to go around that process. It seems like overkill, and I think the taxpayer deserves a break here at some point.

Mr. Chairman, let me just say to close, again, research is important in every industry, but there are industries all over the country in agriculture, in high tech, in storage, in transportation, you name it. It is going on all over, and not everyone is looking to the Federal Government to pay their research costs.

Why here? Why do we have an organization that gets earmarks virtually every year for the same thing over and over and over again? When does the taxpayer get a break? When is this industry weaned?

We just had a farm bill pass last week with subsidies going on and on and on. Here are more agricultural subsidies. I don't know where it stops, particularly with the deficit we have, the ongoing debt that we carry. It is time to give the taxpayers a break. I urge adoption of the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit $400,000 in Federal funds from being used for alternative uses for tobacco in Maryland and reduces the cost of the bill by a consistent amount.

I would suggest to my colleagues that we can find some better alternative uses for the taxpayers' money, like paying down the national debt, for example.

In fact, just yesterday, Treasury Secretary Paulson predicted that the Treasury will reach the nearly $9 trillion statutory debt limit in early October. I would argue that this is a sign that we need to spend less on appropriation bills just like this one.

The certification letter submitted to the Appropriations Committee stated that the funding will go to the University of Maryland College of Agriculture and Natural Resources for the Alternative Uses of Tobacco Research Project.

The funding for this earmark is through the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service Special Research Grants account, which are congressionally directed and noncompetitive research earmarks.

The Alternative Uses of Tobacco Research Project is focused on finding new, nonsmoking uses for tobacco, such as pharmaceutical or biotechnology applications.

I am not denying that there aren't potential benefits for this research for the tobacco industry, for pharmaceutical industry, or for other biotechnology industries, but how long is the taxpayer going to be expected to fund specific research for the benefit of these industries?

This is not a new earmark. In fact, the project has received earmarks of between $320,000 and $400,000 each year since fiscal year 2002. Including this earmark, the University of Maryland will have received over $2 million in Federal earmarks for their alternative use project.

Why are we singling out this program and this school and earmarking funds for it year after year after year? What makes this program at the University of Maryland more deserving than Federal funds at other schools or organizations in Virginia, Tennessee, Arizona, California or elsewhere around the country? There are many other earmark projects that we are funding at the University of Maryland as well.

According to research done by Citizens Against Government Waste, from 2001 to 2006, the University of Maryland received just under $17 million in Federal earmarks. I think it is interesting to note in 2006 the University of Maryland paid lobbying firms more than $200,000 for various lobbying activities. Are these lobbyists lobbying Congress for additional earmarks?

When do we say enough is enough? When the smoke clears, the taxpayers are still being asked to fund tobacco research.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for the gentleman from Maryland, and I appreciate the tone which this debate has been conducted in.

I heard some new things here that I didn't know before. This was a Maryland-initiated buyout for the tobacco industry, a buyout which limited the uses of tobacco afterwards. That's great. It should probably be the State of Maryland that funds this kind of research then, instead of the Federal Government.

Another thing I heard that I hadn't heard before is I guess we are moving toward tobacco-based ethanol or something of some such. My old car smokes enough, thank you. I'm not sure that's the way to go, but, in any event, there are limits to what you can do. The truth is you can make ethanol out of an old boot if you expend enough energy doing it, but it doesn't mean that we ought to fund research again and again, over and over and over. There are limits to what the taxpayer ought to do.

And let me just say, given that, I mean, we imposed another tax on tobacco just a day ago, and I think there are plenty of incentives there within the industry, be it the growing side or be it on the marketing side or whatever, to find alternative uses for tobacco. I think it ought to be left with them and not the Federal taxpayer.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to prohibit funding for an earmark for the Ruminant Nutrition Consortium. This earmark would provide $489,000 for ruminant livestock production research, rangeland integration and other livestock resources.

A press release issued from this earmark in a previous year described it as an effort in the northern plains to further develop beef, dairy and sheep finish-feeding, which may lead to more jobs and more value- added agriculture.

Mr. Chairman, I know a little about cattle nutrition. I spent a lot of years on a ranch and a farm; and, in fact, I spent years on what we call bloat watch, where we'd sit at the edge of a field and have to watch while cattle, being the type of ruminant digestive system that they have, might bloat. And you'd have to run and stab the left side and hopefully relieve the suffering and relieve the certain death that comes.

I think this is an effort to relieve a little bloat that is here in this Agricultural appropriation bill and certainly in this budget.

There is simply no reason we should continue to fund research like this when we have, as mentioned already many times tonight, we have an account over at the Department of Agriculture that is for this purpose to dispense research dollars based on competition, where there are groups that are out there will compete for grants. We've told the Department of Agriculture to set up that program, and here we're saying it's not good enough. We're going to have that program; and then, in addition, we're going to give what essentially is a sole-source contract, single bidder. One university or one entity will get this earmark grant.

So it's simply not right.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me just say that the gentlewoman mentioned that this is not a single-source contract or single-bid contract. I have the certification letter. It says I'm requesting funding for South Dakota State University in Brookings, South Dakota, to conduct research into production of environmental aspects of ruminant livestock production, et cetera, et cetera.

What used to be a competitive grant process is no longer with this earmark. We do have a competitive grant process at the Department of Agriculture. Now, this school may choose to have a competitive grant process beyond that, but we're using Federal dollars to give to one university to perhaps disburse among other universities.

If we don't like the process over at the Department of Agriculture, we should end it. We should say we're not going to fund that account anymore, that billion dollars we're giving you is not being disbursed equitably nor wisely. If we believe that, we should tell them. We'd save a lot of money and instead contract with others at the local level and just give it out.

But what we're doing here is we're funding both. We're having a process over there where a billion dollars is handed out competitively with some kind of process, merit-based process, and we're going around that and earmarking funds for specific institutions.

It simply seems wrong.

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

Mr. Chairman, well, I should say I haven't been very successful here. I have noted before I have been beaten like a rented mule here quite a bit. But I must say the majority of Democrats did join me in actually striking an earmark a couple of weeks ago, one Member, and I had the occasion just today of one earmark that I had planned to strike was stricken by the Member himself before I could strike it.

So there are occasions when the Appropriations Committee, for whatever reason, I sympathize with them. They simply don't have the time to vet all of these. I would suggest, when you have 410 earmarks in one bill like this, you simply don't have a lot of time to vet them.

I know a little bit about cattle ranching. As I mentioned, I grew up on a cattle ranch. The gentleman mentioned the process of moving cattle from one cell to another. Actually, we started doing that on the F-Bar some 30 years ago and are still doing it to some extent.

The gentlelady mentioned this is a consortium, four universities, I believe, getting these research dollars, but it's earmarked for that consortium. That consortium could apply to the Department of Agriculture for universities like this. I suppose, cattle have four stomachs, four universities, only makes sense, but they can apply directly to the Department of Agriculture. They don't have to get earmark dollars.

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

Is the gentlelady out of time?

I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman.

I urge adoption of the amendment. We simply cannot afford everything. Let's give the taxpayer a break.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit $6,371,000 and reduce the cost of the bill by a commensurate amount from being used to research wood utilization.

This is the second year in a row I have stood to address this earmark. It seems that not much has changed in the past year of wood utilization research. The committee provided precisely the same amount of funding last year, $6,371,000, for a variety of projects around the country that frankly seem designed to provide a solution in search of a problem.

This is another example of an earmark that has persisted for years that can only be terminated by Congress. The wood utilization program has received Federal funds since 1985 and has received more than $90 million in appropriations.

The United States is the world's largest producer of lumber and wood products used in residential construction and in commercial wood products such as furniture and containers.

The United States is also a leader in the pulp and paper business, producing about 34 percent of the world's pulp and 29 percent of the world's output in paper and paper board. About 1.3 million people are directly employed in the planning, growing, managing, and harvesting of trees and the production of wood and paper products in all 50 States.

The forest industry ranks among the top 10 manufacturing employers in about 42 States with an annual payroll of about $60 billion. This is an industry that dates back hundreds of years and has shown itself remarkably capable to adapt to change. It obviously continues to thrive today.

I sincerely question why the Federal Government needs to involve itself in a program that educates students about the utility of wood as a renewable resource.

What happened to the free market? What happened to common sense? I think we have had it out there for a while. After 1985, we have been doing this same earmark or this same program for the past several years, or it has been earmarked for the past several years. I would say it's time to reconsider the project.

I think the taxpayers may want to take us to the woodshed themselves for continuing to fund at a price of $6,371,000 this same earmark year after year after year.

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

Mr. Chairman, nobody here is questioning the need for research. Every industry does it. Every industry has to do it to survive because of competition.

What I question here is why the taxpayer is spending $6 million every year on this same earmark for a $60 billion industry. This money goes to universities all over the country, so does research money from paper companies that are in the department next door.

There is research being funded. This is a pittance compared to the other research dollars that are being spent.

Thank goodness, private industry knows that they have to do it. But why does a taxpayer have to be on the hook again and again and again year after year after year for this same earmark for wood utilization?

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, how much time is left?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

If the gentleman would yield, these are both very, very worthy efforts, and I look forward to working with the gentleman on these programs.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare).

If the gentleman would yield, I, too, am concerned about treatment of workers at Blue Diamond Growers. I'm aware that the Secretary of Agriculture has the discretion to deny funding to a coop if it is in the best interest of the program. I further note that USDA regulations require that MAP participants adhere to the laws and customs abroad when they hire foreign workers to market their product. We'll work with you on this critical issue of real importance to our workers.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to Congresswoman Kaptur for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Does the gentleman from Georgia have any additional speakers?

We have no other speakers.

Mr. Chairman, we have no additional speakers on our side except for myself in terms of closing. So, if the gentleman from Georgia would close, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I just want to say I think we need to be very excited about this bill. We set out to accomplish several goals, including strengthening rural America, having the opportunity to protect our public health, improving nutrition for more Americans, and we tried to be concerned particularly about rural areas. But we're looking at 40 percent of the children in rural areas who are dependent on food stamps. We look to transforming our energy future to $1.2 billion in loans and grants, particularly in rural areas, supporting conservation, investing in research, which keeps our agriculture on the cutting edge and, finally, enhancing oversight.

Most importantly, what I believe about this bill is it brings our Nation back to its most fundamental principles and that is the strength of our communities. We have an obligation to keep these things and to get them right, and I'm assuming we will take that responsibility today.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

I rise in opposition to the Sessions amendment, and I am astounded that the gentleman is taking the time of the House with this amendment.

The only requirement in the language that the amendment seeks to strike is for the USDA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture to provide a report on contracting out policies and expenditures, to the appropriations and the Oversight and Government Reform committees.

This is a bipartisan provision, included when the gentleman's party was in the majority and a long-standing provision that was first part of the Agriculture bill for fiscal year 2004.

If the gentleman's aim is to allow USDA to continue contracting out, this amendment is not the way to accomplish that. The language that we have included in the bill does not prevent USDA from carrying out the outsourcing of Federal work. What it simply aims to do is to establish a much-needed oversight on the related costs to contracting out.

Regardless of how one feels about the role of the Federal workforce and the outsourcing of Federal jobs to private contractors, why would we object to transparency in this area? We are talking about a report.

Now, after the comment about the report being burdensome, this is the report, it is hardly burdensome, four paragraphs and a chart. It really defies the imagination.

The fact is that we need to exercise our responsibility. We need to increase oversight in this area. We all know that the administration's guidelines for public-private competitions, OMB circular 876, has long favored contractors and stacked the deck against Federal employees.

The Bush White House has pushed privatization so much that the Los Angeles Times reported earlier this month that there are more private contractors in Iraq than U.S. troops. More than 180,000 civilians, including Americans, foreigners and Iraqis, are working in Iraq under U.S. contracts, according to State and Defense Department figures obtained by the newspaper.

I believe we should know the costs associated with contracting-out policies. That is all, again, that is all the language in the report is about, and I cannot understand why the gentleman objects to a report.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

Mr. Chairman, again, let me just notify the gentleman who just spoke, there is truly nothing in our bill that deals with the issue of privatization or with States and privatization. I think the gentleman is confused with the Agriculture appropriations bill and with the farm bill which occurred a week ago. That was addressed in the farm bill. There is nothing in our bill that deals with the issue of privatization.

I think it's again worth noting that all we are speaking about here is a report. What I can't understand is why we would not want to know about the cost of contracting out and what is happening. That is what our responsibility is, to ask questions. We have oversight responsibility of these Federal agencies.

As I pointed out before, you have 21,000 Americans, 43,000 foreign contractors, 118,000 Iraqis all employed in Iraq by U.S. tax dollars, according to the most recent government data. You have got the massive privatization of military jobs which have been taken up with construction, security, weapons systems, maintenance, and, in fact, we can't even keep track of that effort. We have a responsibility, whether it is Department of Agriculture, whether it is Department of Defense, whatever Department it is.

If we want to hold the jobs that we have, we ought to be asking questions about how taxpayers' dollars are being spent by these agencies. And it's fiscally responsible, and it is what we are charged with doing. You may choose not to know what they are doing because you concur that that's the thing to do, to replace Federal employees and their jobs. You can hold that view, but let's get the information. Let's get a mere report to do it.

I ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

I yield myself 2 minutes.

I rise in strong opposition to this amendment from the gentleman from Texas to cut the Community Facility grant program.

These are grants, please understand, that assist in the development of central community facilities in rural areas and towns of up to 20,000 in population. These are small communities, low populations, low income, and they receive a higher percentage of the grants.

What are they used for? To construct, enlarge, improve community facilities. What are those community facilities? It is about health care, public safety, community, public services. When you have seen what has happened to rural America with the loss of jobs, globalization, you have families and livelihoods which have become marginal, you also see the fabric of the community and those institutions cannot be sustained, and these things go away. And so that the local community has an opportunity to create some of these services that are necessary, it is vital to small communities, to impoverished communities. And they build fire stations, hospitals. They purchase ambulances and other critical facilities.

And if you don't deal with the health care where they have limited availability and accessibility, we are going to continually have a shortage of health care providers in rural America, and that is a disaster.

Major investments in transportation, telecommunications, and other critical services are necessary in many rural areas, and local tax bases are unable to support necessary investments and improvements. And we know what the topography is in rural areas with the remoteness from metropolitan areas adds only to their difficulties.

This is essential, this program, to really help communities get a critical infrastructure. This is building infrastructure in rural America, which every report, every study says we need to do in order to reenergize and revitalize rural America. I urge you not to vote for this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).

(Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, let me close by saying that, again, this is about building infrastructure in rural America.

The facts are that the demographics are changing in rural America. We are looking at communities that have lost jobs, that have lost because they can't sustain them, community institutions. These community facility grants allow for these communities to access resources in order to create the kinds of services that they and their families need in order to be able to survive.

The demographics are going in one direction, and the administration will take away all of the opportunities, as with the gentleman from Texas, for these communities to be able to thrive. It is wrong, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise again in strong opposition to this amendment from the gentleman from Texas. This would cut in half the Broadband Community Connect program.

This funding level will help. First, let me quote to you from something called the Carsey Institute Report, Rural America and the Twenty-First Century Prospectus from the Field. And this is the quote. This is June, 2007: ``Expanded broadband telecommunication is essential, is essential, if rural areas are to be competitive in a global economy.''

I can't believe the gentleman would want to move us backward and not forward in terms of allowing our communities to move into the 21st century and to be able to compete globally. This funding level helps more families in rural communities get the access that they need to technology. This helps to increase business, employment opportunities, greater access to educational and lifesaving medical services.

This is not a partisan issue. We all support providing increased broadband

services to rural America. Communities that are selected to receive grant funds do not currently have access to broadband connectivity for central services of police, fire protection, hospitals, local governments, libraries, schools. In return, what the communities do, because it is a partnership, they provide a community center where you have at least 10 computers to be available to the public with hours set for instruction and on the use of the Internet.

This is about economic opportunity and revitalization and the potential for improving the quality of life for residents in these areas that need to have this infrastructure. The technology is going to be the key to the ability of rural businesses and rural economies.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

How much time, Mr. Chairman, remains on our side?

The President's proposal was to zero out the broadband program, telemedicine, which is really quite extraordinary in an age of technology, an age of trying to bring our communities together and particularly rural America. One of the things that we do in this bill is we're examining why we have so many underserved areas in terms of rural America. And we're going to request that the Inspector General do a study of why money isn't going into the underserved areas.

I don't think that there's an individual in this House, on either side of the aisle, that doesn't believe that that is the key to the future; the Internet, broadband, telecommunications. It's for urban areas. It is particularly for the rural areas which are underserved. Again, these are communities population under 20,000. Libraries, educational centers.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).

I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

How much time is left, Mr. Chairman?

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I reiterate: These are FDA-approved drugs from FDA-approved facilities. Let's set the record straight.

The Congress has been misled by the pharmaceutical industry. They have stood in the way of keeping safe and affordable prescription drugs out of the hands of consumers. They are now misleading us in this campaign to scare the American public on the issue of drug importation. Prescription drugs can be imported into the United States safely. It has been done for decades. Reimportation needs to stay on the table. It needs to stay in this bill.

The drug companies have repeatedly demonstrated the influence that they have gained within the FDA and the Bush administration. It is time for the Congress and the American people to demonstrate that we are not easily swayed. Oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Why? Why would we want to deny American workers, including those involved in rural development, the opportunity to receive fair prevailing wage protection? It's a matter of fairness for working men and women.

This is a program that is 75 years old, started by a Republican Congress in a Republican administration. The amendment attempts to undo what the House farm bill passed last week.

Mr. Chairman, Davis-Bacon prevents our workers from being exploited, and it encourages high-quality work. Again, I urge the rejection of this amendment.

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

I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment, which would cut all of the agencies and programs in the bill by 5.5 percent to stay at the 2007 level.

This would represent a cut of more than $1 billion from the bill. Now is exactly the wrong time to cut funding for the critical programs under this bill. It is not the way to restore fiscal discipline and balance the budget.

Rather than using targeted precision cuts, as we have done with the bill, an across-the-board cut hurts core programs, increases the investment deficits our communities across the country have had to overcome in the past years, regardless of the value of the program. We face investment deficits in fundamental programs, rural and economic development, nutrition, international food assistance, agriculture exports, conservation, food and drug safety.

I mentioned in my opening remarks that the fiscal year 2008 mark provides total discretionary resources of $18.8 billion, $1 billion above 2007, $982 million above the budget request. These are modest increases, but critical to provide basic services to rural communities to feed those in need and support conservation efforts. And 95 percent of the increase in this bill is used precisely to restore these programs.

If we cut $1 billion from the bill, as the gentleman is proposing, this is what would happen: we would not be able to fund these efforts in rural development. Direct loans for the section 515 Rural Multi- Family Rental Housing Program; section 502 directs single family housing programs; broadband grants, the Community Connect Broadband Program; Empowerment Zone; Enterprise Community Program; Community Facility Grant Program; Rural Business Enterprise and Opportunity Grants Program. We would have to significantly cut funding for water and waste grants, mutual self-help housing grant programs, farm labor housing loans and grants. In conservation, we will eliminate funding for the Watershed Flood Prevention Operation.

Watershed surveys and planning. Cut funding for the Watershed Rehabilitation Program, Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative, and the Resources Conservation and Development Program.

Nutrition. Without $1 billion, we may not be able to restore funding for the Commodities Supplemental Food Program. We may have to cut WIC administrative grants to States.

The increases needed and provided in this bill are not based on the belief that we should just throw money at the challenges that we face. The modest increases are about meeting the Federal Government's obligation.

I oppose the gentleman's amendment.

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

I would just concur that I think what we need to do is to look at core programs. Whether it is at the USDA or at the FDA, the gentleman's amendment would force all of these agencies that cover rural development, and I laid out the programs. Again, if you take a look at the demographics of rural America and their needs, which have to do with water and conservation and transportation and broadband and housing, by the very nature of your amendment, we've cut $1 billion from all those very, very critically important programs that are meeting the needs today of rural America in an effort that they may be able to re-energize and revitalize their communities, put together the kinds of community institutions that will help people in rural America to be able to thrive. They have taken a terrible blow in wages and in globalization. And what you would do with your amendment is just snatch that money from these kinds of efforts.

And I will just say this to you: quite honestly, what we've tried to do is, because the administration, and I'm presuming that this is something that you support along with the administration, is to say to rural America, You're on your own. If you don't have it, forget about it, we're not going to be there to help you. Government has a responsibility, a moral responsibility, to engage when people are facing challenges in their lives.

I believe everyone in this Chamber on both sides of the aisle would concur on what we are seeing happening in rural America and what is happening to the economic stability of this area and of these communities and of these individuals. It's not statistics; it's people. It's people's lives; it's people's abilities to have health care, to take their kids to school, to be able to afford education and transportation costs. Why would you want to take that away?

Why would you want to decimate nutrition programs when 40 percent of children in rural America are dependent upon food stamps? Why would you want to say no to nutrition when one out of eight families with an infant in this Nation is food insecure?

Let me tell you what food insecure means. It means they're hungry. They're hungry in the richest country

in the world; and that is wrong, which is why your amendment really should be defeated, and it makes no sense.

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

Announcement By the Acting Chairman

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, every year, the administration has castigated the Congress for funding these items. In fiscal year 2007, in the continuing resolution, we left the decision up to the administration. In order to decide what to do, the administration conducted an extensive review of all of the ``earmarks'' in the Agriculture Research Service account. Do you know what? They decided that the vast, overwhelming proportion of the earmarks were worth funding. This one on catfish genomics was approved by the administration. It may have a funny name, but it makes a good sound bite.

I am sure that the members of each party that requested this funding can tell the House a lot about the importance of the catfish industry to their State and the economic losses from the disease in a very serious way.

We also have recently witnessed what is happening with imported product in terms of catfish from China and, in fact, what that has done to that market in these communities.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise to oppose this particular bill.

But before I do, I do want to say I think there are a number of good things, a number of good provisions in the bill. As one who has come to the floor on numerous occasions to attempt to champion fiscal responsibility and earmark reform, I do take note that under the chairwoman's leadership, the gentlewoman from Connecticut, that the number of earmarks are actually reduced in this bill. I consider that progress, and she should be commended for that.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I also note that the bill increases spending over last year by 5.9 percent, 5.9 percent. Now the people who are ultimately going to be called to pay for this bill, my guess is their salaries didn't go up 5.9 percent. And I know throughout this debate we always point out all the good things that are in the bill, and occasionally we have to point out this very inconvenient question, and that is, who's going to pay for it all? Who's going to pay for it all?

Right now, the Federal Government is still spending roughly $23,000 per family. It's one of the largest levels in our Nation's history and the largest since World War II. Although it's down, the deficit is still very high, and Member after Member comes to the floor to decry raiding the Social Security Trust Fund, but we know if we're going to grow the Federal budget, including this bill, way beyond the growth of the family budget, that you continue to raid the Social Security Trust Fund.

Members come to this floor to decry borrowing money from China to pay for the national debt, but, again, if we increase this spending 5.9 percent, it's exactly what this body is going to do.

Now, we've already had a robust debate over the farm bill last week, and I know that many provisions in this bill will help rural America, and as one who represents six rural east Texas counties, I'm glad for that. As somebody who comes from three generations of people who made their living from agriculture, I appreciate the challenges in agriculture.

But I might observe that if we were really, really serious about trying to help all the different people involved in agriculture, maybe what we'd do is end the death tax, something our friends from the other side of the aisle have fought every step of the way. Somebody works their entire life to put together a ranch or a farm, Uncle Sam can come in and take 55 percent. Maybe we would stand up for private property rights and let these people dispose of their livestock as they wish. Maybe we would actually work to open up more markets for all of our food and fiber. But, no, instead, we're going to increase spending 5.9 percent.

That's the wrong approach, Mr. Chairman. We should defeat this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that may be

modest in the dollars involved, but I believe it is very, very important in the principle that underlies it.

The amendment would simply level fund the Community Facilities Grant Program, level funding. It would spend the same amount of money next year that we have spent last year.

Instead, what we see in this appropriations bill is that the amount is going to be increased 37 percent, 37 percent. Now, again, the people who are going to be expected to pay for this, I seriously doubt that they saw their paychecks increase 37 percent.

Now, I have no doubt that good things can be done with this money. Those who want to spend more of the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars always have some very good rationale for doing it.

But the question is, any time you create a Federal investment, by definition you are going to be creating a family divestment, because somebody has to pay for this. In this particular case, when it is the Heritage Foundation, as is noted, by at least one count we have 10,000 Federal programs spread across 600 different agencies. I defy any human being to tell me what they do. The Office of Management and Budget has noted in their budget report: ``This program is redundant with other Federal programs at the Department of Commerce and Housing and Urban Development.''

Now, my reading of this bill, and I would certainly let the chairman correct me if I am wrong, I don't think one single program is terminated in this particular bill. Everybody is going to get more money except the people who have to pay for it, and that is the poor beleaguered taxpayer.

I have a lot of respect for the chairman of the subcommittee, and we serve on the House Budget Committee together. I know she hears the same testimony that I hear. That testimony is this Nation has a huge spending problem.

Already with the government that we have, we are on track to double taxes on the next generation or, for all intents and purposes, there will be no Federal Government in the next generation, save Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

I know it's a problem that doesn't manifest itself tomorrow, but how long is this Congress going to kick the can down the road? I mean, we have heard the testimony. Our Comptroller General has said that the rising cost of government is ``a fiscal cancer'' that threatens ``catastrophic consequences for our country and could bankrupt America.''

Yet here we have a bill increasing one program 37 percent and terminating none, none. I mean, where does it all stop?

Now, I know the subject matter is important. I have the honor and privilege of representing a fair amount of rural Texas in the Fifth Congressional District, but those are the same people who are being asked to pay for this. They are the ones who are going to be subjected to the single largest tax increase in American history of roughly $3,000 per family.

So here we have out of 10,000 Federal programs one that OMB has said is redundant, does the same thing that other programs do. Unfortunately, the committee's response is to increase it 37 percent.

Now, maybe the savings is modest to the taxpayer, but the principle is huge, because ultimately the Federal budget cannot grow beyond the family's budget ability to pay for it. There is a very important precedent that could be set here. Let's take one program and tell the American people who have to pay for it, know what, it can do with the same amount of money last year that it had this year. Let's protect, let's protect the family budget from the Federal budget. Let's adopt this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, let's hear from some of the people in rural America whose health care is going to be impacted by this bill.

More spending fuels more taxes. Let's hear it from the McConathy family in Mineola, Texas. ``We are retired and on a fixed income. If our taxes are raised almost $3,000, we will not be able to afford the medication we need.''

Mr. Chairman, that is coming from the people who have to pay the taxes to help pay for the 37 percent increase in this program that the Democrat majority wants. Maybe they can spend their money better for their health care; and, because of that, I urge adoption of this amendment.

No, I do not.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is, frankly, identical to the purpose of the previous amendment; and that is, let's show the American people that, out of these 10,000 Federal programs spread across 600 different agencies, that maybe one of them, one of them can do with the same amount of money next year that they had last year.

Instead, this particular program that is involved, the Broadband Grants program, in H.R. 3061, spending on the program has doubled, increased 100 percent. Again, are people who are expecting to pay for this, did their family income go up 100 percent?

And I have listened carefully to several of the previous speakers, and I will be measuring my comments. But, Mr. Chairman, I grew up working on my father's family farm. I am the son of a farmer. I am the grandson of a farmer. I am the great grandson of a farmer. I grew up in rural communities in Texas like Slaton and Naples and Lingelville. So, Mr. Chairman, I don't take a back seat to anybody to my commitment to rural America. It is where my roots are.

And so maybe some of the people on the other side of the aisle, maybe their constituents are a little different than mine. Maybe the people they grew up with and their surroundings and circumstances were different than mine. But I spend a lot of time talking to people in rural Texas in the counties that I have the pleasure of representing, those counties that help comprise the Fifth District of Texas. And they would love to all have broadband. They would love to have it.

And do you know what else they love even more? They would love not to have the single largest tax increase in American history imposed upon them. They would love to get rid of the death tax that can take away the family farm or ranch it took generations to build. That is what they would love. They would love the ability to be able to dispose of their private property, as they struggle to make their family farms and ranches successful. Each one of these has been opposed by the Democrat majority. That is what rural America needs. That is what people on the farm and ranch need.

Now, again, the goal of helping bring broadband to rural America is a very worthy goal. It is a very lofty goal. And I am sure in just a couple minutes we will hear how the entire rural America will come to a complete halt if we don't have any Federal, a Federal Government program dealing with broadband, notwithstanding the fact that the Office of Management and Budget has already noted, ``This program is duplicative of the Broadband Loan Program authorized in the 2002 farm bill. The areas eligible for grants are also eligible for low-cost broadband loans through the RUS.''

The program is already there. So what are we doing spending double on this program, being completely oblivious to the people who have to pay for it?

Again, there is great, great focus on the benefits of this program. But where is the focus on the cost?

Again, I know the gentlelady from Connecticut hears the same testimony I do in the Budget Committee, but already we are on track, we are on track to double taxes for the next generation. The Comptroller General has said that we are on the verge of being the first generation in America's history to leave the next generation with a lower standard of living. And so what do we do? We don't even sit idly by. We double spending on this particular program, completely oblivious to those who have to pay for it, especially future generations.

If there is anybody who qualifies today for the least of these in the political process, it is future generations. And because of that, although the principle is large, the sum is modest, I encourage adoption of the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, number one, with all due respect to the gentlelady from Connecticut, this amendment would cut nothing. It would level fund the program from one year to the next.

And, again, let's hear the voice of rural America. Let's hear from the Peterson family in Van who is going to have to pay for this.

``I am a widow, a full-time college student, single mother of a growing teen boy. This amount would be impossible to squeeze out. The monthly amount is more than half of my monthly vehicle installment and more than a third of my monthly housing expense and exceeds my already bare bones monthly grocery budget.''

Let's adopt the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

I do, but they're not here quite yet.

Mr. Chairman, let me yield myself 1 minute, and maybe somebody will percolate and maybe they won't.

I wanted to make a comment. Mr. Hensarling had noticed that the earmarks were down. I think this is a good thing. I think that our job is going to have to be to make sure the earmarks stay down as this thing goes through the process, but I also think we need to be concerned about what can happen that will add costs to this bill.

It's interesting we just had a bill that had about 50 people vote against it. It was a popular bill that created a number of new programs, and I was thinking that so often on appropriation bill there's always a standard 100 to 150 people who vote ``no,'' and yet here was an authorizing bill, suddenly it's okay to spend money on an authorizing bill because it doesn't count. But on an appropriation bill, those same people who voted ``yes'' an hour ago will be voting ``no'' on the appropriation bill, except for Mr. Hensarling, who's pretty consistent on everything.

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

Mr. Chairman, I think I have one more in the wing. So let me again enlighten you with some of my wisdom, if I may yield myself 1 minute.

One of the amendments that we have been working on in this bill is the insistence that those who sell or contract to the Federal Government use Social Security verification. There's a program called the Basic Pilot Program, and we have that amendment in the bill.

I think it's important people realize that the idea is that if you're doing business with the Federal Government you should be in compliance with the law of the land, which is to have legal employees; and what this does is requires those vendors and sales corporations and contractors and subcontractors to show that they are in compliance by having Social Security verification.

I'm excited about this amendment. I think it's very important. President Clinton actually did the same thing February 13, 1996, by executive order; and I am hoping that if there's some problems with this amendment that as this bill moves through the process we may need to tinker with it a little bit but that we can keep the gist of it.

Mr. Chairman, we have no more speakers around, and I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

I thank the gentlewoman for the time.

I want to say this is a major policy change. That is why we are here debating it. It is unfortunate we don't have a full Chamber. But the reason that I offer this amendment is because I think we should have the floor engaged on it, and we will have that opportunity tonight.

Number two, people are doing this. There are 1 to 3 million people who are buying Canadian drugs and drugs from other countries right now. If we are interested in safety, we will find a way to make this safe. This is a country that just invented the iFone, the iPod, the navigation system, and all this stuff. We can figure out how to make these drugs safe.

Finally, as Ms. Kaptur said, these are certified drugs made in the United States in most cases.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman I yield myself 45 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, we are at a time right now when people are paying $3.10 for gas, $3.30 a gas. Gas is on the rise, and our options are limited. We are importing 60 percent of our oil.

It is ironic that on an Ag policy where 2 percent of the population is feeding all 100 percent, if we were importing 50 percent of our food, it would be a national security crisis, and yet oil, which is just as important, we are importing 60 percent of it.

During this time when we are in desperate need for alternative energy options, we should not increase the price of making cellulosic ethanol. And yet in the Ag bill, there was a clause that says if you are building an ethanol plant, you have to have prevailing wages, which drives up the cost of the plant and, therefore, drives up the cost of ethanol.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/4\ minutes.

I wanted to say what we are talking about here is if a business goes and gets a loan, then the government, because it is a government loan, turns around then and basically dictates what they have to pay, and what they have to pay is a higher wage than it is in most communities. Otherwise, the Democrats would not be putting it in here. If this was about free enterprise, this clause would not be in the farm bill.

And my biggest gripe is that it is making energy costs go up because it is making the construction of alternative energy facilities higher. As Mr. King says, it is about a 20 percent bump in the cost of construction of a cellulosic ethanol plant. That's why I think it is a concern.

Who is going to pay for this? The consumers at the pump. And, in the meantime, there might be fewer alternatives.

In Georgia right now my good friend, Mr. Scott, knows we have three ethanol plants on the books, another two coming, and potentially 70 to 80 that will be built in the next 2 to 3 years. Now those are not all cellulosic ethanol plants, but why should we increase the cost of those?

I am excited about this because it does represent a new avenue in alternative fuels, and I don't think we should make anything increase the cost of that.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding.

I want to say that I support this for two reasons. Number one, this bill will be vetoed by the President should it make it through the United States Senate, which is doubtful to begin with, but that's nothing we can control over here. But we know the President has sent out a veto message that the spending level is too high.

We have debated this in committee before. I offered a similar amendment that failed. But I think we need to be realistic. The bill that we're spending tonight is not realistic.

Number two, I want to point out something. This is actually not a 5.5 percent cut because it's not an $18 billion bill. It's really a $90 billion bill. However, because of what I would call negligence on the part of the House, practiced by Republicans and Democrats over the years, we have decided to put about three-quarters of this bill on automatic spending. We call it mandatory. Now, nothing is mandatory when you make the laws. Nothing is mandatory. So it's kind of lazy. It's just sort of ``spend as is.''

And my friend from Connecticut has said that the gentleman from Ohio's amendment would actually take the nutrition and food programs away from children, yet most of them fall into this red category, which isn't even touched by his amendment.

His amendment is actually very conservative. It only affects about the $18 billion portion of this bill. And again, that's not where most of these food programs are, these critical programs. Now, I'm a believer that we should be debating both the red and the yellow portions of this bill and look at it realistically because this is a $90 billion bill, and the 5.5 percent only affects $18 billion.

And with that, I want to say that's why I think that it is important for us to always look into the authorizing side of a spending bill and the discretionary side.

I do support the amendment. And we have had this amendment, a similar amendment, in committee already. My friends on the committee have known my position on this.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

My friend from Arizona is having a good time. I don't blame him, but this is something that is good for the country. It is good for literally millions of people who have grown tobacco.

Let me say to my friend from Arizona: A, I don't smoke; B, I have never smoked. And when redistricting occurred and I got most of the tobacco-growing areas of Maryland, I went down and met with the Farm Bureau. I said, Look, I'm new to you. You don't know me. Actually, they did know me because I had been in office for some time. But I said, I want to tell you something right out front; I think smoking is bad for people's health, and I am not for it.

About eight of the 10 to 15 tobacco farmers that were there said to me after the meeting, they came up to me and said, You know what, we don't smoke and we don't want our kids to smoke.

That aside, Maryland has had one of the most successful tobacco buyout programs in America. In my district, the tobacco-growing area of Maryland, 90-plus percent, almost 95 percent of

the farmers have taken the buyout, which means they can no longer ever on the property they own have tobacco grown for the purposes of smoking tobacco.

There were literally, as you can imagine, hundreds, and across the country there are thousands and thousands of farmers so situated, families who have been involved in this process for most of their lives and who produce a product, used alternatively, can have extraordinary value. But the problem is the research has not been done on it. Why has it not been done on it? Because the tobacco product was a very valuable product for a bad purpose; that is, smoking. Harmful to health and a destroyer of life.

Very frankly, some of the Farm Bureau came to me and said, Do you think we can find an alternative use, because we have a lot of expertise in growing this product, and we have facilities to do so. We think it can have some beneficial effect. My good friend said he thought that was the case. He is correct. There are a lot of good things in life that can happen, and his proposition is why this money, why here?

Well, because I represent my district. But I also believe this has national implications that if we can get a product from tobacco that is useful, and I want to discuss some of them, that will be good for our country, good for our economy, good for jobs, and good for people who have been displaced from the very lucrative but harmful vocation and who are now put to perhaps not having nearly the livelihood they expected to have.

The amendment seeks to eliminate funding for an important research project being undertaken at the University of Maryland. One of America's extraordinary research institutions, a land grant college established in the mid part of the 19th century, it seeks to develop safe and beneficial nonsmoking uses for tobacco.

The Alternative Uses of Tobacco Project has several very important objectives. First, we are seeking to take advantage of the many beneficial nonsmoking uses of tobacco. Most people would not think of the tobacco plant as having a use beyond smoking. They would be wrong. I didn't know that either, frankly.

Tobacco naturally produces high-nutrition proteins, one of the highest of any product, industrial raw materials and large amounts of biomass which can be used for renewable energy. Think of it. We talk about corn, we talk about other things, and we want to talk about cellulosic to produce energy. We just passed a farm bill seeking to do that. Think if all of the tobacco farms in America could be turned into energy producers, an extraordinarily positive contribution to the economy of our country.

Secondly, we're trying to revitalize tobacco-producing communities across the southeastern United States by shifting their focus away from the traditional use of the crop and generating new markets and new industries for beneficial new nonsmoking purposes.

Unlike Maryland, the Federal buyout, as you know, didn't eliminate the growing of tobacco; and in many States that have buyout programs they didn't eliminate the use of tobacco for smoking purposes. Maryland did. So that if we could give alternative uses for a product and get it out of the sale of use for smoking products, what a health benefit that would be for America.

So I suggest that this $400,000 is an extraordinarily good investment in health care, in the economy for our people.

Third, we are attempting to develop new technologies for producing leaf proteins. Leaf proteins are as nutritious as milk protein, but, unlike other protein sources, they are generally nonallergenic. Tobacco may be the largest producer of leaf proteins of any agricultural crop, but its historically inadequate processing technologies have limited their development.

Now, let me tell you something. The tobacco companies do not grow tobacco. They sell cigarettes. So they do not have an incentive to do this. The people who have an incentive to do it are the tobacco farmers, but, guess what, the tobacco farmers don't have a lot of money. It's the tobacco companies that have a lot of money.

So the tobacco companies rely on, I'm sure in your State as they do in mine, land grant institutions who have focused on agricultural research, as does the University of Maryland, as does the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center.

So I have some other things to say, but I think you get the point.

Mr. Flake is a friend of mine. I have great respect for Mr. Flake. Not only that, I think he offers his amendments in a very positive way. I've never seen him get mad at anybody. I've never seen him criticize anybody. I've never seen him say a cross word to anybody. He sets forth what is a correct proposition, that, look, we could save a lot of money by not having any of these earmarks and we wouldn't do this research or maybe the State could do it or maybe somehow the farmers could get together in a cooperative and do it. But they haven't done it and the Federal Government has historically invested in long-term progress.

Now, very frankly, the best example is the space program. The space program has made an extraordinary contribution in the creation of jobs outside of the space program, and agricultural research colleges have done the same for farming and feeding the world. We honored with a gold medal a university professor who fed the world, billions.

So I ask my friends, this is $400,000. We will spend $400,000 in Baghdad in the next hour or so. I don't know what the Citizens Against Government Waste think of that, and I frankly don't think they think of this particular item. I understand that. They think generally we ought to stop wasting government money. I agree absolutely.

And if you think research in a product to turn it to pharmaceutical use, if you think that research in a product to turn it to better energy production, if you think research in a product that may be available to give us better protein production, then I think, my friends, Mr. Obey has said, we get the point. So I say this, and I'm laughing, this is a serious investment in good things for all people.

I hope that, notwithstanding the fact that he is my friend, that you will reject the gentleman's amendment, and I thank you for the time.