Providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 3161) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.

I thank the distinguished chairwoman of this subcommittee and the chairman of the full committee.

Mr. Speaker, I think that we have waited long enough for energy reform and for nutrition reform, which is what this bill tackles. I rise today to support working for American farmers, but also working for those who get up every day without a meal.

To recognize that it is important to have food safety, it's important to have an improved food and lunch program and food stamps, it's important to focus on nutrition, and that is what we have done here.

I am glad to see that there is an aspect that deals with alternative fuels; and having written a bill dealing with cellulosic ethanol, I know that we have to move in a more effective direction. But I am also glad that we recognize a particular viable aspect of the importance of dealing with hunger in America.

I am concerned and hope that as we move forward, one of our vital assets, the Hunger Center, will move toward authorization, as I understand, and then increase funding so that it can be a tool to the Department of Agriculture in dealing with the question of hunger in America and around the world. This particular bill also provides more help for USAID, and I believe that it is an important asset.

In the short time that I have I would like to yield to the gentlelady from Connecticut to ask a question, and that is to comment on a point I made about the Hunger Center, and the fact that it is moving towards authorization that we will see in the years to come, an opportunity for more work on its part and more resources.

I ask my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3161, which strengthens our rural communities, while making sure that the American people have adequate, safe and nutritious food to eat. Let me commend the Chairwoman of the Subcommittee, Ms. DeLauro, for her exceptional leadership in crafting such extraordinary legislation to combat hunger, obesity and malnutrition in our nation and around the world. That is why I strongly support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3161 allows us to reinvest in the often forgotten but most vitally important rural areas of America. H.R. 3161 is designed to sustain the vitality of rural America, as well as protecting public health and food safety, improving nutrition and healthy eating, and promoting renewable energy and conservation in America.

Mr. Speaker, more than 3 million households in the rural America continue to have inadequate or no water or sewer service at all. H.R. 3161 is the solution to this disparity in that it provides $500 million for rural water and waste disposal grants, a 14 percent increase over 2007, and $1 billion for water and waste direct loans for the fiscal year.

Mr. Speaker, energy independence and protecting our environment are universal concerns to us all. The Energy Information Administration estimates that the United States imports nearly 60 percent of the oil it consumes.

A bill that I have proposed, the 21st Century Energy Independence Act acknowledges this issue and aims to replace oil imports with domestic alternatives such as traditional and cellulosic ethanol that can help reduce the $180 billion that oil contributes to our annual trade deficit, and end our addiction to foreign oil.

My bill alleviates our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels by utilizing loan guarantees to promote the development of traditional and cellulosic ethanol technology. In addition to ensuring access to more abundant sources of energy, replacing petroleum use with ethanol will help reduce U.S. carbon emissions, which are otherwise expected to increase by 80 percent by 2025. Cellulosic ethanol can also reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 87 percent. Thus, transitioning from foreign oil to ethanol will protect our environment from dangerous carbon and greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3161 supports an innovative solution to our national energy crisis as well. H.R. 3161 ensures that America achieves energy independence and improves our environment by establishing a loan guarantee program which supports projects for the harvesting, storing, and delivery of agriculture residues for use in cellulosic or traditional ethanol production plants. H.R. 3161 supports energy and conservation, nearly doubles funding for renewable energy loans and grants to businesses to grow our economy, create new jobs, lower energy prices, and reduce global warming. The bill provides resources for research, aid to farmers and ranchers, and loans to businesses, restores many vital programs such as the Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative, Resource Conservation and Development, and the watershed programs.

Mr. Speaker, recent food scares--about peanut butter and lettuce-- have made Americans nervous about where their food originates. H.R. 3161 tackles these concerns and addresses the importance of food safety. This bill fully funds the Food Safety and Inspection Service at USDA, shifts funds to fill vacancies in federal meat inspector positions, invests in research, and funds a transformation of FDA food safety regulations. It also prohibits imported poultry products from China, and sets a timeline for USDA to implement critical country of origin labeling for our meat supply after six years of Republican delays.

In addition, H.R. 3161 provides a special supplemental nutritional program for women, infants, and children other known as (WIC). This provision is so essential because it affords many women, especially women of color in lower income brackets, the opportunity to care for themselves and their newborns after birth. Without programs such as WIC, many mothers would not be able to maintain a healthy lifestyle during pregnancies and after childbirth. Because of WIC, mothers can afford their nutritional foods they need to sustain their pregnancies and avoid miscarriages, stillbirths and defects caused by malnourishment during pregnancy. H.R. 3161 invests $233.4 million (4 percent) more than the President to feed more than 8 million pregnant women, mothers and children next year.

Mr. Speaker, I believe in the importance of multilateral engagement, and in the immense value of working with other concerned parties. Hunger and malnutrition are truly global problems, and, while I strongly urge the United States to be a leader in combating both, it is not the only world actor. International organizations, like the United Nations, are actively combating global hunger through a number of different organs including the World Food Programme, the Food and Agriculture Organization, and the World Health Organization. Additionally, regional organizations, such as the African Union (AU) and the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD), play a crucial role in efforts to eradicate hunger.

I have an amendment that requires coordination and integration between different foreign assistance programs, and it states that assistance shall also be coordinated and integrated in the recipient country with other donors, including international and regional organizations and other donor countries.

Nonetheless, hunger is not a problem facing not only the international community faces, but it is also a problem in our own country. Many women, children, and the elderly should not wake and go to bed hungry in our great nation, but tragically this happens all too often in the cities and villages and small towns of our great country. Too many Americans continue to suffer from food shortages, hunger, and insecurity. According to 2005 figures, 35.1 million people live in households that are ``food insecure,'' or they do not know where their next meal will come from.

The commodity supplemental food program incorporated into H.R. 3161 provides $500,000 monthly in the year 2007 to combat hunger and increases funding in this area to allow people in five additional states to participate in the program and expand those getting food in states already in the program. In addition, under the Food Stamp Benefit provision, H.R. 3161 protects the most vulnerable and helpless; families of soldiers in combat. Like the recently passed Farm bill, the measure ensures that the families of soldiers in combat are not penalized under the Food Stamp program. It also rejects the Administration's proposal to restrict eligibility for food stamps by excluding needy families who are receiving certain other services.

Mr. Speaker, let us remember that 1 in 3 American adults is overweight or obese and more than 9 million children are struggling with obesity. H.R. 3161 aims to improve the eating habits of Americans, particularly our children, through programs that teach children about healthy eating. H.R. 3161 increases funding for nutrition programs, including the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program, which broadens Fresh Fruit and Vegetable and Simplified Summer Food programs to all states to provide nutritious foods to children in low-income families, and specialty crop grants to encourage more fruit and vegetable consumption.

Obesity is associated with 35 major diseases including chronic and life-threatening conditions such as cancer, diabetes and heart disease. It is important to keep our Nation healthy by providing access to high consumption of vegetables and fruits to the future of our great country, our children. By supporting H.R. 3161 we assure a healthy consumption of nutritional foods for children whose only crime is that their families are poor.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3161 is essential because it addresses one of the most staggering causes of death in children: malnutrition. Malnutrition remains a significant problem worldwide, particularly among children. According to the United Nations World Food Programme, severe acute malnutrition affects an estimated 20 million children under the age of five worldwide and is responsible in whole or in part for more than half of all deaths of children. Malnutrition kills approximately one million children each year, or an average of one every thirty seconds.

These statistics are absolutely frightening and simply intolerable. They are also avoidable. The World Food Programme estimates that, when implemented on a large scale and combined with hospital treatment for children who suffer complications, a community-based approach to combating malnutrition could save the lives of hundreds of thousands of children each year.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3161 recognizes the importance of helping our neighbors in combating the hunger. H.R. 3161 provides funding for the Foreign Agricultural Service in the amount of $159,136,000 and transfers of $4,985,000, for a total salaries and expenses level of $164,121,000, an increase of $2,817,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2007 and a decrease of $9,073,000 below the budget request.

In addition, H.R. 3161 permits the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to use up to 25 percent of the funds appropriated for local or regional purchase of food to assist people threatened by a food security crisis.

Mr. Speaker, if it were not for grants such as the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program, many foreigners would have no other choice than to leave their native country in pursuit of a better life. H.R. 3161 reminds us that it is important for the United States to foster a relationship with other parts of the world, so that citizens of developing countries can also have basic rights such as sufficient amount of food. The McGovern-Dole International Food program is funded in this bill in the amount of $100,000,000, an increase of $1,000,000 above the amount available for fiscal year 2007, and the same as the budget request.

The George McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program fights child hunger and poverty by supporting school feeding operations, which provide nutritious meals to children in schools. This simple formula has been proven to be a success. Because of such programs, students are better able to concentrate and learn more quickly on a full stomach. Enrollment and attendance rates have skyrocketed as a result of school feeding programs, particularly among girls who are too often denied an education.

Mr. Speaker, there are 110 million school-aged children suffering from hunger every day, and they are counting on America's leadership and generosity to provide them with an opportunity to break the cycle of poverty. This bill provides that leadership and generosity, and it is for this reason that I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for its passage by an overwhelming margin.

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, 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?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I begin by expressing my great appreciation to my friend from Worcester for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

I have to ask myself exactly why it is that we are here. One might think that this is Groundhog Day. We've already passed a rule on the Agriculture appropriations bill, and I would say to my friend, we've already passed the so-called SCHIP bill, which proposes a cut for seniors on the Medicare program and a massive tax increase for people all across this country and perpetuates this generational warfare challenge. That bill is behind us.

We have not had a single dilatory motion that I've seen since passage of this SCHIP legislation, and yet the Rules Committee chose last night to do something that, from all of the research that we have done, has never been done in the history of the Republic.

It is true that on occasion we have, after lengthy debate, come back with second rules when we were in the majority. For example, in 1995, we came back with a rule on the Interior appropriations bill that, by the definition of the new majority, would have been defined as an open rule. It simply said there would be a preprinting requirement that was put in order for all of the other amendments that would be offered during the measure.

Mr. Speaker, never before have we seen a rule on an appropriations bill come from the Rules Committee to the floor that self-executes one amendment. But this rule doesn't self-execute one amendment; it self- executes six amendments. This has never, ever been done.

We did, as my friend from Worcester said, have an interesting long discussion last night. We were here until nearly 3:30 in the morning yesterday, and then we had a lengthy discussion as we were waiting for votes here on the floor last night up in the Rules Committee. And I talked about the fact and my colleagues on our side talked about the fact that this was unprecedented. And Mr. Hastings, the gentleman from Fort Lauderdale, said, oh, well, will the world come to an end? The world isn't going to come to an end. But one of the great privileges that I have is working with our colleague, David Price, on our House Democracy Assistance Commission. And we are, right now, engaged with 12 new and reemerging democracies around the world. I like to argue that one election a democracy does not make.

It's really hard work building democracies. And in countries like Lebanon, Afghanistan, Liberia, Kenya, Macedonia, the Republic of Georgia, the Ukraine, Haiti, Colombia, East Timor, Indonesia, Mongolia, countries that are moving towards democracy or have relatively young democracies, we have been working with their new parliaments because we know how important it is to have parliaments that have committee structure, oversight of

the executive branch, libraries, members who can work to provide constituent services. That's what this 20-member Commission that David Price now chairs, and I'm privileged to serve as the ranking minority member on, has been working on.

What we've done, Mr. Speaker, is we've said we have a 220-year history in the United States House of Representatives. We don't claim to have a corner on the truth, we don't know exactly how it's done, but we do have experience. And Mr. Speaker, it saddens me greatly that as we continue to work with these new and reemerging democracies for these countries that are just beginning to have a taste of political pluralism, the rule of law, and the opportunity to build democratic institutions, that we, today, are once again restricting the opportunity that the minority has had.

I will say that my friend has talked about breaking an agreement. You know, there was an agreement, a bond that was talked about in last year's election and a bond that was made with the opening speech that was delivered by my California colleague, the gentlewoman from San Francisco, our new Speaker, the first woman Speaker of the House of Representatives. I regularly laud the fact that she has done that, the first Californian and the first Italian American. I am very proud as a Californian.

But I will tell you that commitment was made on the opening day, and has been made repeatedly, by my very good friend from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader, time and time again. We have continued to hear about this promise that we will have a great new sense of openness. We will have transparency. We will have accountability. We will have the things to which we all supposedly aspire. But what is it we have gotten here, Mr. Speaker?

As bad as you all say that we were when we were in the majority, as bad as the now majority says that we were, Mr. Speaker, when we were in the majority, we would have never contemplated self-executing five amendments in a rule for an appropriations bill.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

If I can reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker, I would just say, were there six amendments that were self-executing in the passage of any of those rules?

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield back to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, never before have we had an action such as this, self-executing six amendments in passage of the rule and completely shutting down the process. Mr. Speaker, never before has this been done. I have a litany of colleagues who share my outrage. They want to be heard.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I know that my very good friend, the distinguished majority leader, as am I, is an institutionalist. He is just a little junior to me in this House. I came here just a few months before he did in his special election in 1981.

That is the reason I reminded my friend of that, of course, Mr. Speaker.

Let me just say that getting the people's business done is a priority for every Member of this House. I recognize the responsibility of ensuring that we move through with our appropriations work. As the gentleman knows very well, we were able to complete the House's work on appropriations bills in the past. The distinguished majority leader wants to do that as well.

I do believe that if we look at the, you can call it a bump in the road, we have had very, very strong disagreement, as I said earlier, over the SCHIP bill. There was a lot of consternation about this. But the fact of the matter is, the additional hour was granted. We have now moved beyond that bill. We are now at nearly 2:30 in the afternoon, and things have moved certainly relatively smoothly today on the floor. I am just saying that I am very, very concerned about setting this kind of precedent to the appropriations process itself.

I recognize we came forward with closed rules in the past. You all, unfortunately, have had twice as many closed rules at this point from the beginning of the last Congress. But on the appropriations process, I just hope, for the good of the institution, that being the half of the American people who won't be able to be heard, there were more than 60 amendments that were in the queue to be considered for this measure, that we don't go down to only 12 amendments. I just find that very troubling.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Thanks for telling me that. I was wondering.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I mentioned the fact that this is the 27th year for the two of us to be serving in this great institution. If one goes back and looks beyond last year but instead at the appropriations process which during our 27-year period has been considered under an open process, there are times when we would be here late at night voting on appropriations bills in the past. It has allowed Members to work their will as they have gone through this.

So while you have looked at the precedent of last year as part of this agreement that you and Mr. Boehner had, the concern that I have is that this is setting a precedent for the future, which is a very, very troubling one.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Sessions), a hard-working member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to yield the gentleman from Dallas an additional minute.

I will say in response to the assessment that the gentleman provided of my service as chairman of the Rules Committee, I never reported out a rule that shut down the entire process, which is exactly what this rule is doing. With regard to self-executing items--

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the distinguished minority leader.

Mr. Speaker, with the utmost respect for my good friend from New Haven, the distinguished Chair of the subcommittee, I will say that we could at this moment be debating this bill if we continued with this open amendment process.

The SCHIP measure is over and done. My friends on the other side of the aisle have won this debate. We are prepared to move ahead with an open amendment process that will allow for a free-flowing debate.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

If I can reclaim my time, let me just tell you the guarantee of the process. I was very happy to yield to my friend, and I will be happy to yield to her again, but I will say, Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is we have not had any dilatory tactics put into place since passage of the SCHIP bill. All the time we spend on this rule could have been spent discussing exactly what the gentlewoman has been speaking about.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from Morristown, New Jersey, a hardworking member on the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Frelinghuysen.

(Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I'm very happy to yield 2 minutes to our colleague from Mesa, Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from Mariposa, California (Mr. Radanovich).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to my colleague from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Marietta, Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a hardworking member of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Alexander, Iowa (Mr. Latham).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from Kiron, Iowa (Mr. King).

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am happy to yield 1 minute to my friend from Hobbs, New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 599 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California, my very good, good friend, Mr. Dreier. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 599.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 599 provides for further consideration of the FY 2008 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, and I rise in strong support of the underlying bill.

I want to thank my dear friend from Connecticut, Rosa DeLauro, the chairwoman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee for her work on this bill and her passion for fighting hunger in this country and around the world. I also want to commend Ranking Member Kingston and Chairman Obey and Ranking Member Lewis for all of their efforts and their hard work.

I very much regret that we have gotten to this point. I do not take the idea of structuring debate on appropriation bills lightly. Unfortunately, we have gotten to the point where structuring debate on the Agriculture appropriations bill is the only way to pass the bill before we break for the district work period.

As the distinguished majority leader so eloquently noted the other day, we have spent hours and hours and hours, beyond historical norms, to complete our work on the appropriations bills. Last June, Democratic and Republican leaders came to an agreement that, in exchange for allowing full and fair debate with up or down votes on dozens of amendments, Republicans would allow the appropriation bills to proceed through the House. We have been able to come to unanimous consents to consider those bills, and they have largely passed with large bipartisan majorities.

Now, I know that some of my friends on the other side of the aisle were upset with the process used to consider the SCHIP bill, and after our discussion in the Rules Committee last night, I understand their concerns. But they have decided to use that frustration as an excuse to prevent completion of our important appropriations work, and we do not believe that that is in the best interest of the Nation. Clearly, my friends on the other side have decided to abandon the June agreement, and that is their right. But it is our responsibility, in the majority, to complete these bills in a timely way.

Unfortunately, it has become clear that a small number of Members on the other side was willing to use a filibuster-by-amendment strategy to shut down the House and prevent us from completing our work. Mr. Speaker, if Members wish to filibuster bills, they should run for the United States Senate.

There is a difference between serious legislating and obstructionism. And I believe that offering amendments to cut bills by $50,000 and then $100,000 and then $101,000 and so on, and debating these bills forever and ever and ever and using procedural mechanisms to unjustifiably delay the consideration of bills, not to move serious legislation forward, but to delay the consideration of bills, I think that's obstructionism. And I think what we saw on the floor the other day was obstructionism.

This rule makes in order 12 amendments, all of them Republican amendments on a variety of issues. Many of what I would call the ``usual suspect'' amendments were made in order, amendments by members of the Republican Study Committee to cut certain programs in the bill, an amendment to cut funding across the board, an amendment from my good friend, Mr. Flake, to eliminate earmarks.

Mr. Speaker, I also regret that tensions have risen over the last several days. Perhaps it's inevitable before a break, and perhaps it's the heat and humidity, but I hope that all of us can come back after Labor Day refreshed and rededicated to doing the people's business in a civil way.

Mr. Speaker, Hillary Clinton says ``it takes a village.'' Maybe for us it takes a recess. In this business, your word is everything; without it, there is no trust. And without any trust, this would be a very, very unhappy place to work.

I thought we had a very good discussion in the Rules Committee last night. I believe we understand each other and where we're coming from a bit better. I know my friend, Mr. Dreier, and other members of the Rules Committee are eager to look for ways that we can make this process better. They have my word and I think the word of all of us on the Democratic side that we want to work with them to make that happen.

In the meantime, however, we have a responsibility to do the people's business. And the rule before us allows us to do that in an orderly way that allows for vigorous debate and votes on amendments.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, facts are a stubborn thing. At this point, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the majority leader.

If the gentleman will yield, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, who is on the floor here today, Mr. Obey, did. If you would like to ask him questions, you may.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Let me simply say to the gentleman that I very much regret the tone that the gentleman is taking here today.

Mr. Speaker, let me finish what I was about to say to the gentleman from Texas.

I very much regret the tone of his remarks here on the floor today. Last night the gentleman talked about the need for civility and the need for us to have more comity in this Chamber. It is clear today that he obviously lost sight of at least the spirit of his remarks last night. I regret that very much.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 8 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on both sides?

We will reserve our time at this point.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I regret the fact that the gentleman feels he needs to personalize this debate; and I would only ask the gentleman, how many ranking Republicans are right now under investigation who continue to serve in their capacity?

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

No, I do not, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am reserving at this time because I am the last speaker on my side.