To repeal a provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act providing for funds to a health care facility and rescind funds made available under such section.

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

I'm delighted to present the 2010 Agriculture-FDA appropriations bill. I want to thank the ranking member, Congressman Kingston, for his collaboration and his input over the last few months. I thank both the minority and majority staff as well for their tireless work. Lastly, and especially not least, a special thank you to Chairman Obey for his counsel and for the resources he provided to make this bill possible and for his leadership and vision to ensure that we can continue to get things done and achieve our goals.

We stand today at a turning point. Today, we're talking about people's lives--struck hard by an economy in chaos, facing shrinking services and struggling with rising prices and unemployment.

I believe the administration's budget demonstrates that it is interested, after years of underinvestment in the Federal Government's capabilities, in protecting public health, supporting American agriculture, strengthening rural communities, and conserving the environment.

This bill proposes new investments in these priorities and the agencies that can help us meet them, while making specific and sensible budget cuts where feasible.

As in recent years, the bill focuses on several key areas, such as: Protecting public health; bolstering food nutrition programs; investing in rural communities; supporting agriculture research; strengthening animal health and marketing programs; and conserving our natural resources.

The fiscal year 2010 Agriculture-FDA appropriations bill provides for almost $23 billion in funding. It is an 11 percent increase over 2009 levels, the vast majority of which went toward three program areas: The WIC program, the FDA, and International Food Aid. Additionally, in order to make these important investments, to use the resources available to it wisely, the bill proposes a number of cuts totaling more than $735 million.

To protect the public health, the bill provides a substantial increase for the Food and Drug Administration to support a total discretionary funding level of almost $3 billion, or a 15 percent increase--almost $373 million. That is to hire additional inspectors, conduct more inspections of domestic and foreign food and medical products. And, as many of us know, the FDA has been underfunded for far too long. This is not only a matter of public health and consumer safety, it is a matter of national and economic security.

Not all of the dangers that threaten the health and safety of American families can be found in airports, border checkpoints, or harbor containers. Sometimes they lurk in our refrigerators and on our kitchen table. From E. coli in cookie dough to salmonella in peanut butter, we have seen very real threats posed by food contamination in recent years. And we just cannot afford to neglect our food safety system any longer.

The FDA's primary responsibility is to the American people to ensure the safety of the food they eat, the drugs they take, and the medical devices they rely on. With this increased funding, they will have the resources and manpower they need to keep us safe.

In addition, the bill fully funds the administration's request for the Food Safety and Inspection Service at the USDA, the Department of Agriculture. It puts in over $1 billion dollars for FSIS for the first time in history.

In terms of conservation, the committee makes a significant investment in USDA's natural resource conservation programs. The bill appropriates a total of $980 million for this purpose--a $73 million increase over the administration's request.

The bill rejects the administration's cuts to the Natural Resources Conservation Service's farm bill conservation programs, which include the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program, and the Wildlife Incentives Program.

It restores funding for other valuable programs, including the Resource Conservation and Development Program and the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Program.

In the area of nutrition, the bill works to improve nutrition and help those hit the hardest by the current economic crisis. Food costs and participation in WIC continue to increase at dramatic rates. And the bill provides $7.5 billion for WIC to serve our Nation's vulnerable populations--10 percent above last year--to support participation of 10.1 million people.

WIC is a program that we simply cannot afford to underfund any longer, particularly given the gravity of the current economic climate. Our fundamental responsibility as legislators and as leaders, to say nothing of basic morality and fairness, demand that we do everything we can to help Americans suffering right now from poverty and malnutrition.

In the area of international food aid, the bill expands America's traditional commitment to international food aid by providing an increase of $464 million to the P.L. 480 Title II Grants Program. We also provide an additional $99.5 million to the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program.

In the area of rural development, the bill creates new opportunities for growth and development in the Nation's small town economies by increasing funding for water and wastewater infrastructure grants by $73 million; provides $8.7 billion for housing; $541 million for community facilities; and $9.3 billion for the rural utility programs.

In research, the bill makes significant investments in agricultural research: $1.2 billion for the Agricultural Research Service; nearly $1.2 billion for the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service. That money is allocated to such programs as the Hatch Act, Evans-Allen, the new competitive Agriculture and Food Research Initiative, Smith Lever, the 1890 programs, and the Veterinary of Medical Services Act.

With continuing volatility in the futures market, the bill provides the administration's request for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the CFTC, $160.6 million--$14.6 million and 10 percent above 2009--in order to better secure the markets from improper speculation. Just yesterday the CFTC moved to stem heavy speculative trading in the oil, natural gas and energy markets. With this increased funding, the Commission will be better poised to ensure market integrity for all honest brokers.

In closing, I look forward to working with all of you today as we work to craft responsible agriculture legislation that alleviates short-term suffering, encourages long-term growth, invests in our future and reflects our priorities as a Nation.

Let me take a moment to say thank you to our staff who have worked diligently to help put this bill together. The subcommittee majority staff: Martha Foley, our clerk; Leslie Barrack; Matthew Smith; and Kerstin Millius have worked closely with David Gibbons on the minority staff. In addition, Brian Ronholm and Letty Mederos on my staff and Merritt Myers from Mr. Kingston's staff all have worked very, very hard to bring this bill to the floor this evening. I hope the Congress will seize this opportunity to help American farmers and families in these tough times and get us moving again on the path to recovery. I urge you to support this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I just would say to my colleague that I sympathize with the difficulties and the disaster that has befallen your district, and I would urge you to speak to the authorizing committee and Mr. Peterson in the Agriculture Committee for this effort.

With that, let me just yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

I thank the gentleman for his efforts on behalf of the dairy industry. Over the past year, dairy farmers across the country have been challenged like never before. I support efforts to provide increased relief to these farmers. I thank you, Mr. Courtney, Mr. Welch, Chairman Peterson, and other Members for their efforts. I am committed to helping struggling dairy farmers and their families in Connecticut and across the country.

I thank my friend from Vermont for his leadership and my friend from Connecticut. I applaud his continued efforts to help the dairy industry. I look forward to working with you.

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

I agree with the gentleman about the importance of protecting and strengthening USDA's organic standards.

I yield myself 5 additional seconds.

I was pleased to incorporate it into today's chairman's amendment, the amendment to increase funding to the Office of the Inspector General.

I am pleased, Mr. Chairman, to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

I yield the gentlelady 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I assure the gentlewoman that we will work together to correct the inequity that has been in place since the 1996 welfare reform bill. I agree with you. The time has come to address this issue in a meaningful way. We are talking about individuals who have paid their debt to society. They should be given a new opportunity to make a new life, to provide food assistance for themselves and their families. It is the right thing to do.

Let me yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

The importance of the program is clear, Mr. Kucinich, and you have raised a very valid point. I agree with you that the Organic Production and Marketing Data Initiative should be funded in order to compete with the rest of agricultural commodities.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

I thank the gentlelady for her support of the Child and Adult Care Food Program, and I would like to work with her very much in the future to expand access to meals in the At-Risk Afterschool Care programs. Through CACFP, 3.1 million children and 108,000 adults receive nutritious meals and snacks each day as part of their day care. The bill before us today expands the afterschool meals program to additional areas. I want to ensure you that we will work together to expand this essential program.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 10 seconds.

I yield myself 10 seconds.

I want to assure the gentlewoman from Texas that it is of a high priority for me to make sure that we address the very serious issue of hunger in this country and internationally, and we will spend a lot of time in that effort.

Yes, if the gentleman would yield, I would be happy to address the issue.

I would just say to the gentleman that there is a need to improve inspections of seafood imports. As you know, less than 1 percent gets inspected each year. And there was a lot of discussion about this provision during the farm bill last year.

I, frankly, have some concerns that it would further complicate the organizational structure of food safety, instead of simplifying matters in moving that jurisdiction from the FDA to the USDA. Also, if USDA diverted resources to inspecting catfish, would it take away resources from meat and poultry inspection. And I would just say that we did plus-up funding to the USDA to be able to accommodate this new responsibility.

Another concern I had about this provision is that moving seafood inspection, or even catfish inspection, is more complicated than it seems. There is a substantial difference between preventing outbreaks in meat and poultry and preventing outbreaks in seafood. And the FSIS, the Food Safety and Inspection Service, has no experience with identifying seafood pathogens.

So I look forward to discussing this issue further with the gentleman in answering some of the questions that you have with regard to this.

Well, certainly, we have had a discussion about it over time. And I think the gentleman knows my position on this issue, and my position has not changed in a number of years.

And it's my view that the decisions about the importation of food products from China are a public health issue that must not be entangled in trade discussions. And I understand that Chinese officials are suggesting a quid pro quo, if you will, and they are trying to link the exportation of poultry products with reopening U.S. beef exports to the People's Republic of China.

Those talks, in my view, should be separate and distinct. My position in this area has to do with the public health of this Nation. It is clear that the 2006 FSIS declaration that China's safety and inspection system was, quote, equivalent to the U.S. system for processed poultry products, was based on trade goals. From a public health and a safety perspective, the equivalency determination was deeply flawed and cannot be relied on to protect U.S. consumers' safety.

Equivalency was granted in the face of overwhelming evidence of contamination in Chinese processing plants and in Chinese slaughterhouses.

Therefore, in my view, the ban on poultry products from China must be maintained. And while USDA does have a process, as you pointed out, in place, that process, in making a determination of equivalency for processing U.S. chicken in China, was flawed and was broken and has not worked.

The committee, by the way, and you understand this, intends to undertake a thorough review of, convene hearings on the equivalency process in general. And what we will examine are audits of inspection, on-site reviews of processing facilities, laboratories, other control operations, increased level of port entry reinspection and information- sharing programs with other countries.

So I look forward to continuing this discussion and working with you as the committee moves forward with its examination. But in the meantime, the limitation in carrying out this rule needs to be maintained.

I would just say to the gentleman that we have a responsibility that whatever the food product is coming, and that food product from anywhere, that the country that is producing this product or processing this product must have the same set of equivalent standards that we have domestically to ensure the public health of people in the United States. We have witnessed over and over again in the last several months that we will put the public health at risk when children die, when people are ill from either a product that's domestically produced or internationally produced. We, as a Nation, and those of us who serve in this body, I believe, have a moral responsibility to do something about it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment, and it contains several provisions.

First, it appropriates the tobacco fees authorized in the recent tobacco bill to start up the new Tobacco Control Program as authorized under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.

The amendment also provides increases of $2 million for the Agriculture Research Service and $3 million for the National Institute of Food and Agriculture. It increases funding for the Office of the Inspector General. It raises the funding level for the Higher Education Multicultural Scholars Program to $1.5 million; provides $2 million for the Methamphetamine Inhibitor Grant Program authorized in the farm bill; and prohibits first-class travel by employees funded in the bill if it violates existing rules.

The increases are fully offset by small reductions to administrative programs. It is a noncontroversial amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would just indicate that the Rules Committee did make the amendment in order. As I say, it is a noncontroversial amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, although I plan to support the amendment, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

I want to first say to the gentleman from Texas, to be clear and have real clarity about this amendment, this would transfer $50,000 from the Office of the Chief Economist to the Economic Research Service.

The gentleman's amendment does not address trade or trade agreements. It is a simple transfer of funds from the Office of the Chief Economist to the ERS, without any designation of what the disposition of those funds are. I want to be absolutely clear about that.

I yield to the gentleman.

As I said, I plan to support the amendment, but the amendment as I say makes that transfer. I did not choose the offset that is included, and we may need to revisit that in conference. But I would be happy to accept the amendment.

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

This amendment does transfer $10.038 million from the Office of Chief Information Officer to the Rural Water and Waste Disposal program. I support more funding for water and waste programs. I did not again here in this instance choose the offset that is included, and we may need to revisit that in the conference. I urge adoption of the amendment. I ask for a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, though I plan to support the amendment, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

This amendment, as has been stated, increases funding for the Rural Energy for America Program by $2 million, taking that funding from the Office of the Chief Information Officer.

The 2008 farm bill provided significant amounts of mandatory funding for this program, and this bill before us today increases that investment towards energy independence. I did not choose the offset that's included, and we may need to revisit that in conference, but I am a strong supporter of these efforts.

I urge the adoption of the amendment and would ask for a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.

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

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

I thank the gentlewoman, my counterpart, the chairwoman of the committee, for her great introductory remarks. I certainly support many parts of this bill. I want to start out by complimenting her on the process that we have and the relationship that we have. We have an open and honest relationship. We can agree to disagree and do it in an agreeable fashion. We have a lot of fun on the committee. We've had a lot of hearings. Many hearings where we are interrupted by votes and then we had to go back over there, sometimes it's just the Chair and I who go back; and we have our way with the witnesses, which is always fun because here in Washington we'd rather be the ones with the microphone than having somebody else have the microphone. We just have a good time with this. I think the staff works well together, and I want to recognize the staff for all their efforts at this time. On the majority staff, Martha Foley, Leslie Barrack, Jason Weller, Matt Smith,

Kerstin Millius, Brian Ronholm and Letty Mederos. I thank everybody on that side for working with our folks. Our folks are Dave Gibbons, Merritt Myers, Meg Gilley, Bernie Tokarz and Jarr Rosenbaum who all worked closely with us over the years; and we appreciate the work of the staff.

I think that if you look at one of the things that this bill has also done in this atmosphere where earmarks are under a lot of scrutiny, in 2006 this bill had $865 million in earmarks. The bill we are looking at tonight has $219 million. That is a substantial reduction. In 2008 there were about 400 earmarks in the bill, and now we're down to about 322. So we're making a lot of progress in reducing the number of earmarks, and that is a good thing.

What this bill does not have though is spending reductions; and unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, we spend a lot of time talking about increase in spending, but we don't talk about efficiency and effectiveness. The purpose of Congress really shouldn't be just to spend more money on an authorized program. We should make sure that the programs are effective, they're efficient, and are doing their intended purpose. Increasing WIC or increasing food stamps, is that a good thing? I would challenge that premise that it's not necessarily a good thing. It may be a necessary thing to do. But just because we've increased food stamps or WIC spending, I don't think we can polish off our halos and pat ourselves on the back. I think it underscores a situation in society that we need to be addressing, some of it in this committee, some of it in the authorizing committee; but certainly all Members of Congress, what do you do to help encourage people to be more independent so they do not have to depend on the U.S. Congress year after year? Spending in this bill is up about 14 percent overall. It's a $123.8 billion bill. The discretionary portion is up nearly 13 percent from about $20 billion to nearly $23 billion. The FDA is up 13 percent, from $2.6 billion to about $3 billion; and CFTC, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, has gone from $140 million to $160 million, which is about a 14 percent increase.

Now for these increases, what will we get for the taxpayer dollar? What does it do for us? It just really, we know, grows the bureaucracy. It doesn't always get something done better or faster. I think that when we spend more money, we should have a measurement of the expectation, particularly in an economy that is floundering, an economy right now that has an $11 trillion national debt. I think my colleagues here don't need me to remind them where money comes from. We print it; we tax it from those who have earned it; or we borrow it from countries such as China, to whom we owe about $622 billion right now. Truly the national debt is a big problem. It's not the 500-pound gorilla in the room. It's, rather, a whole lot of gorillas that are in the room.

I think as a Republican, one reason why we are in the minority is because we spent too much money. Republicans had a brand identity of being fiscal conservatives, and unfortunately we threw that away. There was a war. There was a hurricane. There were flooding problems. There was terrorism. There were domestic attacks. But that's not an excuse. However, now, particularly with this administration, spending seems to be on supercharge; and as government increases in size, the private sector seems to decrease in size.

Take, for example, the recently passed stimulus program, $790 billion in deficit spending at a time when unemployment was 8 percent; and the President said we have to do something that will give us drastic and immediate results. Now instead of that unemployment rate being decreased, it's almost 10 percent; and 1.5 million new people are out of work since the passage of the stimulus program. Yet here we are again tonight, saying we can pass a bill with a 14 percent increase on it, and that is synonymous with good. Mr. Lewis on the committee actually offered a substitute amendment in what we call the 302(b) allocation that would have actually held spending to a 2 percent increase over last year's level. That was rejected on a party-line vote. But I think Mr. Lewis was trying to say, we've got to rein in control of the spending because it's clear more spending does not create more jobs.

There are other issues in this bill which we, in the minority, have tried to address through amendments. Now unfortunately despite the fact that we turned in to the Rules Committee 90 amendments--and I'll say I had not seen those amendments. I was trying to focus our minority efforts on about 8 to 10 to 12 particular amendments, amendments which I thought were substantial, substantive, that were good government, maybe philosophical disagreements here or there; and I had lots of communication with our Members. So I'm not sure where the other 70 to 80 amendments came from. But I do know with the prefiling of amendments that Members are more inclined to throw a lot of amendments out there to the Rules Committee in order to protect themselves should they decide to go forward on their amendments because if they don't prefile, then they can't even have consideration. But because of the continuing practice of closed rules, most of these amendments, of course, were rejected. Tonight I believe we're going to be looking at two or three substantive amendments, then some earmark amendments, and then a couple of noncontroversial amendments. And I'm appreciative of that. But I do think that we should open up this process a lot more.

There are other things that we should be discussing that are not in this bill, like a limitation on housing payments for illegal aliens. We need to be discussing categorical eligibility for food stamps; and this is a practice widespread right now in the States where if you qualify for one entitlement program, then you're automatically going to be enrolled in food stamps. What the unintended consequence of that is, some people who have substantial net worth are going to be able to get food stamps because they're unemployed. And we all know, tragically, a lot of people are unemployed right now; but some of them have a lot of assets in the bank. Yet under the State interpretations of categorical eligibility, they're automatically enrolled in food stamps. I think that's taking away food stamps from somebody who truly deserves it. We are unable to have an amendment on that. Also payment limitations to farmers who are ineligible for programs. From 2003 to 2006 the USDA discovered about $50 million that was paid to farmers who were not eligible to receive payments. I think that should be addressed in this bill a little more closely than it is. We did offer an amendment on that, but it was not supported. In 2006 the food stamp program made $1.29 billion in overpayments. An amendment that would have prohibited illegal recipients from getting the money I think would have been something good for this bill, but that was not accepted. There was another amendment offered on P.L. 480. It's interesting, P.L. 480, we have increased that substantially. That's our foreign food assistance program. It has popular, broad bipartisan support. But on the same hand, I don't think we had enough oversight, enough discussion as to why that spending needed to spike up to the tune of getting $700 billion in a supplemental bill and then another $464 million in this bill. These things are of great concern to me, and we will discuss some of these in more detail.

I look forward to the debate. I look forward to the amendments. Again, I want to close with where I started with my chairwoman. I enjoy working on the committee, enjoy working with the staff; and we're going to continue to be engaged in this process. It won't just end tonight. We're going to make sure that we follow this bill all the way through; and to the degree that the minority is able to participate, we will be there. But thank you for letting us work with you.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

I want to make a statement on behalf of myself and Mr. Frank of Massachusetts and Ms. Brown of Florida regarding the domestic catfish industry, and if the Chair wants to respond, fine; but we have discussed this.

And it actually came a little bit late in the hearing process to do anything about, but I wanted to give some background. In 2008 the farm bill created a new USDA catfish inspection program that requires the USDA to define what is considered a catfish.

Now, the reason this is important is because the FDA traditionally does the inspection on fish, not the USDA. But now we put in this farm bill, the USDA, in the catfish business. This was pushed by the domestic catfish industry, asserting that Chinese catfish processors would not be able to meet the USDA equivalency requirements of continuous inspection and thus could not export competing products to the United States.

And as somebody who comes from farm country, I know that dealing with foreign competition is very tough because sometimes they subsidize their producers, and maybe they have different regulatory requirements or they have some unfair advantage over the domestic producers. And yet at the same time, the ability to buy food internationally often brings down the price, increases the quality sometimes and increases the number of choices for our consumers. So it is a desirable thing for the United States Government to want to have people import food.

But the FDA uses a hazard analysis critical control point risk-based system that has worked very, very well. But now, under this, we are having the USDA get into the catfish inspection program, which probably is not as--well, it's just not going to be as effective as the FDA program.

The problem is the Chinese begin to grow and export a catfish to the United States called the ictaluridae. And, meanwhile, the Vietnamese started growing something called the pangasius. And these species are very different. Just like a human being is different from a baboon, so are these two different types of fish.

But what is happening now, the domestic catfish industry is pushing the USDA to adopt a broad definition of catfish beyond the ictaluridae and include the pangasius. And I know you got all of that, Mr. Chairman, because I did too the first time.

And the concern that I have is that the USDA really does not have the expertise to broaden their mission to start making definitions on a different type fish than what the farm bill asked them to look into. So I am very concerned about that, as is Mr. Frank, as is Ms. Brown from Florida. And I know other Members are as well, and we really do not want to see the USDA go beyond the mission and include this pangasius in their definition of catfish.

And if the chairwoman wants to respond, I would be glad to yield.

I would be happy to yield.

Well, I thank the gentlewoman, and as we both know, we have spent a lot of time talking also about the USDA and Chinese chicken and that issue. And one of the concerns that--this underscores the thing on catfish, that it is the USDA's domain, really. They have the expertise and the track record on fish, whereas the USDA has a track record on chicken, poultry and beef domestically; and I know that you do have concerns in terms of their expertise to look at the reimportation of poultry products from China. And I wasn't going to really discuss that, but, certainly, if the gentlewoman would like to, we have had----

Well, I thank the gentlewoman for those remarks, and I think that your uncertainty with the reliability of USDA on Chinese chicken I share with the USDA on catfish.

There is a lot to continue to discuss. And it's interesting, Mr. Chairman, as we talk about our trade relations, and I think that the gentlewoman does make a very good point that we have to be sure that our desire to trade with countries doesn't blur the food safety mission that we also have.

I was reminded, though, on the 4th of July that of the $211 million worth of fireworks that we exploded all around the Nation, most of it came from China. And of the flags and buntings that we displayed on the 4th of July, $340 million worth, most of that came from China as well.

So we do have a great deal--we have got a big challenge in front of us as we look at our second largest trade partner in China to figure out, you know, what are some of these lines and boundaries.

I thank the gentlewoman. I have no further speakers on general debate, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Opposition of this amendment has nothing to do with the Agriculture Committee as much as it does the Rules Committee because there were so many amendments that the Rules Committee did not allow by the minority, and the reason that the Rules Committee said they did not allow them was because they were authorizing on an appropriation bill. This is authorizing on an appropriation bill. While there is a good reason for it, it is still something that I think is philosophically inconsistent with what the Rules Committee has been telling us for the last 24 hours. I will ask for a recorded vote on this.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the FY 2010 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration Appropriations bill for the investments it makes in protecting the public health, bolstering food nutrition and conserving our natural resources.

I am pleased that the Food and Drug Administration will receive $2.338 billion in discretionary funding, an increase of $299 million over last year. Serious gaps have been exposed in FDA's ability to protect the American public due to recent outbreaks and recalls of food-borne illnesses. We need to ensure that the FDA has the necessary tools and resources to fulfill its vital mission in protecting the American public from unsafe products. This substantial investment in the FDA will significantly improve food and medical products safety. In addition, the bill fully funds the President's request for the Food Safety Inspection Service, providing over $1 billion for FSIS for the first time in history for the inspection of meat, poultry and egg products.

To help those low-income and elderly Americans struggling with rising food costs in this current economic crisis, this bill strengthens food nutrition programs by providing $61.4 billion for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, an increase of $7.4 billion over last year's amount, and $7.5 billion for the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program. The funding the legislation provides will help an additional 700,000 women, infants, and children, which will increase WIC participation to over ten million people.

As Co-Chair of the bipartisan Congressional Chesapeake Bay Watershed Task Force, I am particularly pleased that the bill provides almost $4 million through the Natural Resources Conservation Services for Chesapeake Bay restoration activities. Providing adequate technical assistance to farmers, landowners, watershed groups and communities is critical to implementing the Farm Bill conservation programs that are the single most vital tool to improving the health of the Chesapeake Bay. This legislation provides $980.3 million for the Natural Resources Conservation Program to help face the demands for cleaner water, reduced soil erosion, and more wildlife habitat.

Mr. Chair, I commend Chairwoman DeLauro, Ranking Member Kingston and the rest of the subcommittee for its work on this legislation and urge my colleagues' support.

Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of the underlying legislation, H.R. 2997 the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010.

My district is home to some of the most fertile farm land as well as some of the hardest working families farmers in the nation.

As you drive through my district, you see fields full of dry beans, sugar beets, corn, wheat, soybeans, various vegetables, and other crops needed to feed our nation and indeed the world.

We have thriving cattle, pork, and dairy industries as well.

While so many identify Michigan with manufacturing, we sometimes forget that agriculture is Michigan's second leading industry--and the bright spot in a struggling Michigan economy.

This bill is important because it provides much needed funding for the Farm Services Agency which administers disaster and loan programs, farm commodities and conservation programs directed toward producers.

The bill also goes a long way in providing money for continued agriculture research which is so important in increasing yields and furthering education for our producers. This measure also includes essential programs to assist those living in rural communities and extends programs that keep the quality of our food safe.

Finally, this bill also provides an important benefit to the Great Lakes, a national treasure which represent 20% of the world's freshwater supply. This bill exceeds the President's Budget and the FY2009 levels for funding for the Natural Resources Conservation Service which help protect wetlands and wildlife habitat.

While there are certainly challenges with this bill--namely an increase in spending over last year--it is vital that we move this important funding bill forward. It is my hope that in conference we can find additional savings to bring total spending down, but this bill does represent spending that will provide sufficient support for an industry that is important to our national economy and necessary to make certain that America remains the greatest food producer in the world. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill.

I want to thank our ranking member, Mr. Kingston, for yielding time.

I would have liked to have actually spoken on the rule. As some of you may know, I protested the rule. I didn't bring the House business to a halt, but I did ask several reconsiderations and a motion to adjourn, exercising my right in the minority, and as a House Member, to proceed on business that I felt was only fair and equitable as far as treatment of a Member when a Member has a problem in his district.

I have the great honor and privilege of representing an urban area, a suburban area, and also a rural area from basically north of Orlando to just south of Jacksonville. The western part of the central and the center part of the northern part of the State is agriculture and rural. It is a great area. People work hard. They are some of the most dedicated, hardworking Americans I know.

Unfortunately, several months ago, we had a disastrous series of rains. We had up to 30 inches of rain in some of the areas. I have pictures of potato fields. My district is one of the largest potato growth and farm areas in the Nation. These fields behind me here were all covered with water and covered for multiple days with sun and rain. What happened is basically the potatoes rotted and we had $50 million worth of damage, which really isn't a huge amount of money when we deal with billions here, but it means the difference between life and death, between staying in business and keeping people employed in my district.

I had asked the Rules Committee for a small change in a program that is called Supplemental Review Assistance program, and those are Federal programs that farmers in my district paid premiums for, participated in, and were eligible for. In fact, 85 percent of the potato farmers were eligible for participation in those programs, but the problem that we had, in spite of their having this insurance, is that the timing of the disaster was such and the rules by which they assess eligibility and disaster payments under SURE would arrive after the crop losses, because some of the data has to be computed for payment rates a year after the harvest. Now, that doesn't help people who are trying to do plantings, and we have different seasons from other parts of the United States. It doesn't help people who are trying to keep folks employed in the farm business, and it doesn't help farmers who are trying to keep their door open.

I asked for a small change, and if you look at the rule, they actually put in some changes, and they were, I hate to say it, legislating on appropriations to help folks. And we normally do that. We help each other in the House of Representatives when our areas have a disaster.

Now, I wasn't asking for any more money. I wasn't asking for another bigger program. There is plenty of money there. It is the timing of the disaster and this particular requirement to get funds and make my farmers eligible and farmers through this devastated area eligible.

So I'm very disappointed. I must say that I have the highest respect for Mr. Kingston, and I have the greatest respect for Ms. DeLauro. They do a wonderful job. My argument, again, is not with you. My argument is with the Rules Committee that did not extend the courtesy to a Member to assist his district in a time of natural disaster. I intend to pursue this no matter what it takes. However, I have to get the attention of the House. We are going to find a way to bring aid to people in my district who just want to stay in business, who want to continue farming, and who want to create jobs in a very difficult economy and not be shut down. They have paid their dues. They have paid their fees.

We are not asking for any more money. We are just asking for a slight change in some of the language on the funds that are available, and there are plenty of funds available.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate having an opportunity to offer this amendment to promote renewable energy in rural America.

America needs a bold new energy division, and I believe this amendment can help. Our sustainable energy future must include the integration of conservation, as well as new technologies, powered by clean renewable sources such as wind, solar, biomass and biofuels.

Specifically, Mr. Chairman, my amendment would transfer $2 million from the United States Department of Agriculture Office of the Chief Information Officer to the Rural Energy for America Program.

While I do recognize the importance of funding for the Office of the Chief Information Officer and its role in providing enhanced technology at the Department of Agriculture, this appropriations bill does provide a $44 million increase for the office compared to last year. I believe it is appropriate to transfer a small amount of that increase, $2 million, to our Nation's renewable energy efforts. Specifically, again, my amendment shifts this funding to the Rural Energy for America Program, known as REAP. The REAP program funds a wide range of renewable energy projects that stimulate rural economies, help create jobs, and address environmental concerns. This funding promotes energy efficiency and renewable energy production and is directed to farming communities and rural small businesses.

I would also like to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that in last year's farm bill there is included a new program that has parallel goals to REAP and is designed to create models of energy independence on a rural community level. This new program, the Rural Energy Self-Sufficiency Initiative, authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to make grants to up to five eligible rural communities annually. The pilot program grants would be used to develop an integrated renewable energy system in order to increase energy self-sufficiency through technologies as well as other renewable sources, such as biofuels, biomass, biogas, geothermal, and wind and solar, resulting in model systems and best practices that could be replicated elsewhere in the Nation.

Because of the importance of this new program, it is my hope that the $2 million provided in this amendment, should it pass, would be directed to the Rural Energy Self-Sufficiency Initiative as the appropriations process moves forward.

Mr. Chairman, I do believe that renewable energy is changing today's agriculture and rural communities. It is clearly in our national interest to help rural communities integrate a wide variety of renewable energy sources and technologies as we move toward energy independence and environmental security.

New development and signs of interest in renewable energy production are booming, Mr. Chairman, and I am proud that my own State, Nebraska, is a leader in creating green jobs in the country.

This amendment does strengthen Congress' resolve to creatively appropriate monies for the best practices in regards to renewable resources and develop new energy options throughout our country.

I urge its adoption, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I would like to thank the chairwoman of the committee for her support of this amendment. It's important. Clearly, we have a similar vision on a bold, new, sustainable energy vision for the country, and I think this is important and will help very much.

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