Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2997) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 609 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, just so there's no confusion, I want to remind my colleagues that we are dealing with the Agriculture appropriations bill and not the Defense appropriations bill or any other appropriations bill. This is the Agriculture appropriations bill.

Mr. Speaker, technically this point of order is about whether or not to consider this rule and ultimately the underlying bill. In reality, it's about trying to block this bill without any opportunity for debate and without any opportunity for an up-or-down vote on the legislation itself.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill that we want to consider here is a bill that provides food and nutrition to some of the most desperate people in this country. It's a bill that will provide much-needed help to farmers in rural areas all across this country. This is an important bill for a number of reasons, and I think it's wrong to try to delay this bill or block this legislation from coming to the floor. I hope my colleagues will vote ``yes'' so that we can consider this important legislation on its merits and not stop it on a procedural obstructionist motion.

Those who oppose this bill can vote against it on final passage. We must consider this rule, and we must pass this legislation today. Mr. Speaker, I have the right to close; but in the end I will urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to consider the rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the tactics that my friends on the other side of the aisle are employing right now to try to delay and obstruct this legislation from moving forward. But, as I said, this legislation is important. It's important to a lot of people. The food stamp program is funded in this bill, WIC, a lot of important nutrition programs, plus a lot of important aid to farmers who are struggling in this tough economy. This is an important piece of legislation.

Again, I want to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to consider so we can debate and pass this important piece of legislation today. I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' and enough of these obstructionist tactics.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlelady from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx. All time yielded for consideration of this rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.

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

House Resolution 609 will allow this body to consider H.R. 2997, the Fiscal Year 2010 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill that deserves the support of every single Member in this body.

The chairwoman, Rosa DeLauro, Ranking Member Jack Kingston, the subcommittee members and their staffs worked tirelessly to craft a bill that provides critical funding for the needs of rural America, conservation programs and two areas that are very important to me, domestic and international food nutrition.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is not perfect. There are programs that I think should be funded at higher levels and other programs that should be reduced. Other colleagues undoubtedly have different priorities. But I believe that this bill is a solid, thoughtful, good compromise.

The FY 2010 Agriculture Appropriations Act makes three major investments. It protects Americans' public health with increases in food safety and funding for the Food and Drug Administration. It delivers critical funding and support for domestic and international food and nutrition programs, and it provides important assistance for rural America by providing funds for rural development, animal and plant health, broadband service, and conservation programs.

Mr. Speaker, this bill provides $22.9 billion for these critical programs. I should point out, less than President Obama's budget request.

With the economic crisis facing families across this Nation, the funding for rural America is more important today than ever. The rural development programs will create real opportunities for economic growth and development in small communities throughout our country. There is funding for rural housing, investments in rural businesses, and support for new community facility infrastructure. The funding for the Farm Service Agency and agriculture research is of vital importance as our farmers and ranchers continue to adapt their businesses into the 21st- century economy.

I particularly want to thank Chairwoman DeLauro for including critical funding for the eradication of the Asian long-horned beetle. This devastating insect has infiltrated my hometown of Worcester, Massachusetts, and surrounding towns. Because there is no natural predator, the only way to eradicate the insect is to eliminate the trees where they live. If this infestation is not stopped, you could devastate the hard wood forest of New England. This is an expensive but critically important endeavor and this bill provides significant funding for that effort.

Mr. Speaker, as we have seen over the past few years, America's food supply is simply not as safe as it should be. We have seen salmonella and E. coli outbreaks in various parts of this country. And the continuing importation of food from around the world means we need to have a vigilant and dedicated effort to protect our food supply from contamination.

This bill provides funding specifically for the inspection of meat, poultry and egg products. There is also critical funding to improve the safety of domestic and imported food and medical products. These programs alone make this bill worth supporting, and I commend Chairwoman DeLauro for her steadfast support of this work.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, and of great importance to me, are the programs that provide food and nutrition to millions of people here at home and around the world. This bill provides significant funding for SNAP, formerly called food stamps; for WIC, the Commodity Supplemental Food Program and International Food Aid, both P.L. 480 title II and the McGovern-Dole Food for Education and Child Nutrition program.

I have long believed, Mr. Speaker, that hunger here at home and around the world is a political condition, that we have the resources to end hunger; but we simply haven't mustered the political will to do so. This bill is a major step forward in that fight to end hunger.

Domestically, this bill fully funds the Women, Infants and Children, or WIC, program. This is a vital program that

provides healthy and nutritious food to pregnant mothers and their newborn children. The funding in this bill will help over 700,000 more women, infants, and children. That means over 10 million people will now be able to participate in this important program.

The bill also provides funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, something the Bush administration never thought fit to fund, but which actually provides nutritious food to over 500,000 low-income women, infants and children and elderly people who struggle with high food costs. This bill also expands the CSFP participation into six States: Arkansas, Oklahoma, Delaware, Utah, New Jersey and Georgia.

The SNAP program, authorized in the farm bill, is funded through the FY2010 Agriculture Appropriations bill. This is one of the most important safety programs in the country. Low- and middle-income families who struggle to put food on their tables are able to turn to the SNAP program for help.

There are over 36 million people in this country who go without food during the year. Too often, families are forced to choose between rent, utilities, and food. SNAP allows families to receive funding so they can buy the food they normally wouldn't be able to afford.

Mr. Speaker, healthy, nutritious food is a right, not a privilege. The notion that we should turn our backs on people who cannot afford it is unfathomable. Millions of Americans needed this help even before the economic downturn.

Today, the number of hungry Americans will undoubtedly be higher than last year; and without SNAP, millions of Americans would go to bed hungry every day. I am proud of the program, and I congratulate the Speaker of the House and Chairwoman DeLauro in their support for this and other anti-hunger efforts.

Finally, I am pleased that there is a significant investment in the International Food Aid provisions funded in this bill. Many of my colleagues may not know that International Food Aid is funded in the Agriculture Appropriations bill.

But this bill thanks the leadership of Chairwoman DeLauro, increases funding for P.L. 480 title II by $464 million for a total of $1.69 billion.

This bill also increases funding for the McGovern-Dole program, increasing the total to $199.5 million. Based on our Nation's school meal program, the McGovern-Dole program provides food to millions of hungry kids at school, allowing children to receive both food and an education.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. It funds the priorities of our Nation and it deserves our support.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the Chair of the Agriculture Subcommittee.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute.

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

I would like to submit into the Record the Statement of Administration Policy on this bill in which the Obama administration strongly supports this bill.

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management

and Budget,

Washington, DC, July 7, 2009.

(House Rules)

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 2997--Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug

Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010

(Rep. Obey, D-Wisconsin)

The Administration strongly supports House passage of H.R.

2997, making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural

Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related

Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30,

2010.

A strong, vibrant rural America is central to our country's

future. The bill, as reported by the committee, makes

important investments in infrastructure so economic progress

does not bypass rural communities. The legislation provides

the resources necessary to keep our food and our medicines

safe and reliable. It provides critical support for farmers

to continue the nation's leading role in feeding the world.

This legislation also addresses chronic problems facing

Americans, including poverty and nutrition and housing. It

invests dollars in rural America for the benefit of all

Americans.

In addition, the legislation responds to the President's

call for investments in programs

that work while ending programs that do not. This legislation

gives priority to merit-based funding in critical

infrastructure programs. The Administration urges the

Congress to continue to apply high standards to funding

decisions so as to shape fiscally responsible policies that

provide solid returns on the taxpayers' investments.

The Administration would like to take this opportunity to

share additional views regarding the Committee's version of

the bill.

Administration Priorities

Expand Broadband Access. The Administration appreciates the

Committee's support for the President's goal of increasing

access to broadband. However, the President's request

provided an increase in loan funding which the Committee

moves into grants, resulting in a decrease in loan support of

$132 million. This reduction will slow expansion of broadband

into rural America.

Rural Revitalization. The FY 2010 Budget requested an

increase of $70 million for rural revitalization grants. The

Administration is disappointed that the Committee provides

less than $10 million of the requested increase, including no

increase for Secondary and Post-Secondary Education,

Institution Challenge Grants, or the Quality of Life Program.

Renewable Energy. The Administration appreciates the

support the Committee has provided to the United States

Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Rural Business programs.

However, the Administration urges the Congress to fund the

Rural Energy for America program at the full requested

amount. This program is necessary in promoting energy

efficiency and renewable energy in rural communities.

Efficiencies and Cost-Saving Proposals. The Administration

appreciates the Committee's support for some of the

President's initiatives to terminate or reduce USDA programs

that have outlived their usefulness, such as public broadcast

grants to help the digital conversion, or that are

duplicative of other USDA programs, such as high-cost energy

grants. The Administration encourages the Congress to

reconsider other proposals made by the Administration that

would better target scarce resources and eliminate

duplicative programs.

Food Safety and Inspection Service

The Administration is concerned with sections 723 and 724

of the bill which deal with food safety issues. The

Administration would like to work with the Congress to

address the issues raised by the Committee in a manner that

would protect the Nation's food supply and be consistent with

our international obligations.

Food and Nutrition Services

The Administration is pleased with the Committee's support

for strengthening nutrition assistance programs by including

funding for food banks, community-based food providers, fully

funding WIC, and by supporting a pilot initiative to help

increase elderly participation in the Supplemental Nutrition

Assistance Program.

Farm Service Agency

The Administration appreciates that the Committee provides

full funding to begin modernization of the Farm Service

Agency's information technology network. Once completed, the

multi-year stabilization and modernization plan, dubbed

``MIDAS,'' will allow the agency to provide program benefits

in a more efficient, accurate, and responsive manner.

Rural Development

The Administration appreciates that the Committee funds the

majority of Rural Development at the President's requested

levels. However, funding for the Rental Assistance Grants

falls $77 million short of the estimate needed to renew the

expiring rental assistance contracts expected in FY 2010. The

Administration urges the Congress to provide the full request

of $1.1 billion, which will continue the support of rents for

USDA-financed properties on behalf of the tenants who receive

subsidized rent.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

The Administration appreciates that the Committee provides

the request to strengthen the FDA's efforts to make food and

medical products safer. This funding will allow FDA to work

with domestic and foreign industry to develop new control

measures for all levels of the supply chain, improve and

increase risk-based inspections, and respond more effectively

with rapid and targeted product tracing when problems do

occur.

Constitutional Concerns

Consistent with the Executive Branch's long-standing views

regarding section 713, the Administration notes that section

713 raises constitutional concerns under the Recommendations

Clause and should be eliminated.

I will also point out that the bill that has been reported by the Appropriations Committee is less in terms of spending than what the Obama administration originally requested.

I would also say, and I want to say this very strongly, that I support the increases in spending in this bill because they're mostly in two areas, food safety and food security, making sure that the food that people buy in supermarkets is safe and making sure that people in this country who are hungry because of this lousy economic situation can have enough to eat, can put food on the table for their families.

We have a terrible situation in this country where the number of hungry people is in the tens of millions, and we can't just walk away from that. And my colleague talks about across-the-board cuts. Across- the-board cuts that make no sense and don't discriminate as to where they're going to cut means you're going to cut programs for food and nutrition that will literally take the food out of the mouths of hungry children. I don't want to do that.

This is a good bill. It has been worked on, I think, with great effort by both Democrats and Republicans, and I strongly support it.

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

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

The gentleman, my good friend from Texas, said he wants to talk about process and procedure, so let's talk about process and procedure.

The amendment he brought before the Rules Committee was a violation of the House rules. Even under a complete open rule on the House floor, it would have been subject to a point of order because it was legislating on an appropriations bill. So you want to talk about process, we'll talk about process. The gentleman's amendment would have been not in order under any process.

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

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

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

I want to respond to the gentleman from New York's comments. I realize that he's new, but the fact is that both of his amendments would have been a violation of the House rules even under an open rule. The gentleman was legislating on an appropriations bill. There are other ways for him to get his point across.

I share his concerns on the dairy issue. I come from a New England State. But the fact of the matter is

that even under an open rule, his amendments would have been ruled out of order because they're legislating on an appropriations bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

This amendment increases the funding for the Natural Resources Conservation Service Account by $5 million by decreasing the Farm Service Agency salaries and expenses.

While I am very supportive of the efforts of this amendment with regard to technical support and of easing the backlog, I must say that I do not think it is a good offset, but we did not write the language, and we will fix the offset in conference.

With that, I urge the adoption of the amendment and ask for a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

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

Well, what I would like to do is to see what the best opportunities are, but I have indicated my support for the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

I strongly oppose this amendment.

This amendment would take away the entire increase over 2009 that is provided in this bill for the Food and Drug Administration. That increase will allow the agency to increase staffing, including staffing devoted to inspections and other field activities, make real improvements in FDA's work to ensure the safety of foods and medical products. For example, in the foods area, FDA will be able to conduct 1,150 more foreign and domestic food inspections and do 20,000 more examinations of imported food products. In the medical products area, FDA will conduct 3,300 more examinations of imported drug products and 4,400 more examinations of imported medical device products.

The FDA will also be able to update its labs with new equipment, will allow it to do a faster analysis of examples. This is especially important during food-borne illness outbreaks. And we have watched what's happened in food-borne illness outbreaks not only in terms of the public health, but we have left industry out there to be exposed and to be able to lose their share, whether it is leafy greens, whether it's tomatoes, whatever it is, if we cannot allow these laboratories to function and to find out what's going on.

The investments reap benefits in the next several years. New inspectors hired with funds in this bill are fully trained, bringing significantly more domestic and foreign inspections and import field exams and other activities by increases in the bill.

We can do research on Salmonella and E. coli biomarkers, new methods of rapid detection of decontamination, improved ability to collect and analyze data on food-borne illnesses. And if you can't understand, when you listen to a mother who says my child of 2 years old died from E. coli contamination--

I am happy to have you speak again. You reserved time.

You know, we have just seen an E. coli outbreak in cookie dough. It highlights the importance of what these additional funds can help us to do. The E. coli bacteria lives inside animals, and that's why E. coli outbreaks are often associated with meat products. How, then, does E. coli get into cookie dough? Additional research on E. coli can help determine how it happened and results could prevent future outbreaks.

In addition to the work on food safety, the increased funds will help the FDA work on new screening tests for blood-borne disease to better understand the adverse events related to medical devices that are used in pediatric hospitals.

Another important tool that the additional funds will provide is to allow the FDA to make substantial investments in information technology for both foods and medical products. This allows the agency to receive and to better analyze adverse events electronically, support electronic submission of applications, and access old data for safety analyses.

I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

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

First of all, it's an 11 percent increase, not 14 percent. I'm trying to save your grandchildren's lives and other grandchildren's lives and my own as well.

We have watched over the last several months and the last couple of years, and the ranking member of this committee understands this and knows this, and we inspect 1 percent of the food that comes into this country from overseas, 1 percent. And the cry has been that there have not been enough inspectors to be able to do that. We are unable to trace back what happened with regard to lettuce, to tomatoes, and others, all of which are putting our families at risk. Your cut, in fact, would put this agency back in jeopardy where it has been for the last several years.

I resent the fact that you as a physician do not understand the value of what the Food and Drug Administration does and that it is responsible for lives. These are not roads. These are not bridges or parks. This is an agency that has authority over people's lives and the public health.

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

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

Announcement by the Chair

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment, which would cut all the agencies and the programs in the bill by 5 percent. I understand. I have three beautiful grandchildren, and they are the light of my life. And for that reason, I'm opposed to this amendment.

This would represent a cut of $1.1 billion from the bill. Now, this is exactly the wrong time to cut funding for critical programs under the bill that protect the public health, bolster food nutrition assistance programs, invests in rural communities, in agriculture research, strengthen animal health and marketing programs, and conserve our natural resources.

While the bill received a relatively large increase over 2009, it is important to understand that the large majority goes to fund just three priorities: $681 million for higher WIC participation and for food costs, $560 million for International Food Aid programs, and $299 million for the Food and Drug Administration to better protect our public health. At the same time, the bill made cuts in a number of programs below 2009 totaling $274 million. We also rejected $735 million in increases in the budget request.

So rather than using targeted, precision cuts, as we have done with this bill, an across-the-board cut would hurt core programs, would increase the investment deficits our communities across the country have had to overcome in the past years regardless of the value of the program.

These increases are needed to support vital services and priorities, vital and effective programs which, quite frankly, have broad bipartisan support. The increases in these areas are needed to ensure adequate funding to support the food nutrition safety net for families that serve an estimated 10.1 million women and children in 2010, strengthen even more of America's commitment to meet humanitarian food aid needs, to enhance the FDA's capabilities to ensure the safety of our food and medical products.

The bill also uses a portion of the increase to make up for cuts to farm bill conservation programs. We did not accept the cuts to priority farm bill conservation programs that the 2010 budget proposed. That budget made significant cuts to wetlands research programs, farmland protection, wildlife habitat programs, all effective programs with backlogs of applications from farmers and from ranchers. All told, the committee bill provides hundreds of millions in funding above the 2010 budget for farm bill conservation programs. Thus the bill uses a significant portion of the increase to make up for the cuts.

In conclusion, I want to note that the increases in this bill are not based on the belief that we should just throw money at the challenges that we face. The increases are about meeting the Federal Government's obligations. Again, I think we need to take a look at core programs, whether it's USDA or FDA. The gentlewoman's amendment would force all of these agencies that cover rural development, food and drug safety, WIC, food stamps to seek drastic cuts in a time of acute need. I think this amendment is fiscally irresponsible. It will further harm our rural communities and our public health, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

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

How much time is available?

I would just like to say that this bill addresses the plight of the American farmers, rural America. And I don't come from rural America. I come from the Northeast. But I have farms.

I'm watching dairy farmers go out of business. That's happening all over the country. And watching the technical assistance programs with backlogs that are not addressing the needs of the American farmer.

This bill addresses those issues.

I just have 1\1/2\ minutes left--and less than that now.

This bill is looking at how we can in fact meet the obligations that we have in a time of fiscal and economic crisis and economic insecurity all over this country. Under the jurisdiction of this bill is rural development. In addition to that, it protects the public health, which we're obligated to do. And when you see nine people die from peanut- based products because we cannot trace back, we cannot analyze, we do not have--

We do not have the tools that are necessary in order to be able to understand what happened. This bill addresses--

Across-the-board cuts apply a meat ax and don't have a precision cut and make a difference. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to this amendment.

Though the gentleman who sponsored this project could not be here tonight, he has provided me with the following information.

This is a conservation project for a not-for-profit volunteer program. Natural Biodiversity was initiated in response to citizens' concerns for invasive plant problems in the 1,887 square mile Kiski- Conemaugh drainage portion of the Allegheny River and Ohio River Basin.

Subsequent work has been expanded the geographic area to include the Juniata watershed of the Chesapeake Bay, the State of Pennsylvania, and a much larger mid-Atlantic region.

Invasive plant management work has led to innovative approaches, including

native plant restoration and comprehensive land stewardship practices. Some of their early achievements have been the early detection and rapid response to noxious weeds and 32 invasive plant locations; education and outreach to 10,000 people, with a potential audience of 500,000 each year; development of a management plan for the 1,000- square-mile Raystown branch of the Juniata River.

So, again, it is a not-for-profit volunteer program that is dealing with a concern and a large area about invasive plant problems. And I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I was just going to make one comment, and that's about fiscal responsibility. I am delighted that the gentleman has gotten religion on fiscal responsibility. As I recall, he spent the last 8 years here witnessing the kinds of tax cuts that have provided the tax breaks for the wealthiest people in this Nation and now has brought this Nation to this fiscal crisis that we have and the indebtedness that we have. I think he must have been missing in action for these 8 years where we experienced this.

This indebtedness did not occur overnight. I once again urge my colleagues to vote in opposition to this amendment.

I'd be happy to yield.

I thank the gentleman. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

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

How much time do I have?

My colleague Mr. Ellsworth talked about this project and has defended it more than adequately. But considering the openness and the scrutiny that has gone into the process this year, I would urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment and continue the good efforts of the proposal that Mr. Ellsworth has made and the whole issue of specialty crops. I share that interest in specialty crops coming from the State of Connecticut where, in fact, that is what we do; and the importance of the research in that area is critical. Support his effort, and oppose the gentleman from California's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 609 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act. The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against consideration of the bill, which includes a waiver of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act, which causes a violation of section 426(a).

I thank the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I raise this point of order not necessarily out of concern for unfunded mandates, although there are likely some in here. I raise a point of order because it's the only vehicle we've got to actually talk about this rule and this bill and how we are being denied the ability to actually offer the amendments that we would like to, to illuminate what's actually in this bill and how this is a break again from the hallmark and tradition of this House, which is to allow open debate on appropriation bills.

We've heard a lot about the sweeping reforms, particularly on earmarks, since 2007. Some of these reforms are good. Some of them-- like requiring Members to put their names next to earmarks, requiring them to sign a certification letter that they have no financial interest in the earmark--are good reforms. They are reforms that many of us in this body have wanted for a long time. But we haven't drained the swamp. All we've done is we now know the depth of the mud that we're wading in, and we're simply not able to hold those accountable who should be held accountable. We have the transparency that we need, some of it, most of it; but with that transparency should come accountability. When you're denied the ability to offer amendments on the floor or are restricted in the number that you can offer, then you aren't able to use that transparency to any good effect.

In fiscal year 2007 during the appropriations process, I was able to offer 40 earmark limitation amendments. These were bipartisan, including eight to the Agriculture appropriations bill. In fiscal year 2008 I offered nearly 50 bipartisan amendments, including five to the Ag appropriations bill. Now last year only one appropriations bill even moved through the House under regular order, the Military Construction- VA appropriations bill. This bill was jammed together with a so-called mini-bus with the Homeland Security bill and the Defense bill. This came to the House under a closed rule. There were no amendments allowed at all. The remaining bills were jammed into a must-pass omnibus bill earlier this year. Only a handful of those were even reported out of committee. That meant that there were over 7,000 earmarks worth more than $8 billion air-dropped into this bill and not one limitation amendment, not one striking amendment, really not any amendments of any kind were even allowed on that bill. So we went through a whole year basically with virtually no amendments offered at all where these bills, these appropriations bills weren't even vetted.

So now we come to this year, and we're told we're going to get back to regular order, we're going to move appropriations bills one at a time and give Members the opportunity to offer limitation amendments. And what do we do? We close them down. The Rules Committee says, Okay, you've offered 12 amendments, maybe you can offer three of those amendments--you choose--on the floor. That's not real accountability. That's not the tradition of this House. That's not an open rule.

And when you see things like this--this is in Roll Call today--The Justice Department this week filed criminal charges against a defense contractor who has received millions of dollars worth of earmarks. Today's Roll Call. Today's Hill--Kickback charges against a defense contractor are putting people in this body, organizations here, in a hard position on whether to return campaign contributions back to the contractor charged with accepting kickbacks in return for earmarked dollars. And yet we're going to be considering the Defense appropriation bill later this month that will contain probably more than 1,000 earmarks from this body, most of them earmarks to for-profit companies, most of which will have executives who turn around and make campaign contributions to the Members who secured the earmarks for them.

Yet I would submit that the purpose of what we're going through now through these appropriation bills is to basically ready this body for the Defense appropriation bill, where people will be used to not offering amendments. Then where we would be able to illuminate a little bit on the floor at least where these earmarks are going, is it proper for this earmark to go to a for-profit company whose executives turn around and make campaign contributions to the Member who secured that earmark for them? Basically Members getting earmarks for their campaign contributors. Instead of being able to stand up and illuminate that, we'll likely be restricted to one or two amendments, or maybe none. That's what we're going through right now, and that's what it's going to lead to.

Now people say that nobody pays attention to process outside of this body or outside of this town. That's largely true. It's tough to score political points saying, The majority party simply won't allow amendments offered on the floor. People typically don't pay attention to bad process. But bad process always begets bad results or bad policy. We learned it on this side. When you hold a vote open for 3 hours--like we did the prescription drug bill vote--

and twist arms, you get a bad result. We added about $11 trillion in unfunded liabilities for future generations. We had several of those, which I think on this side we're probably not proud of. But I can tell you, we always held appropriation bills up, though, and allowed open rules and allowed Members to offer amendments even though it might have been uncomfortable for Members to hear what was being brought to the floor. A departure from that means that we're going to have bad results. We've seen that in the last year or so. When we've restricted the ability of Members to actually offer results, then we have Justice Department investigations because the proper vetting was not done.

Now I would wish--I think all of us would wish--that some vetting would be done in the Appropriations Committee, but sadly it hasn't been done. The chairman of the committee has said many times that they simply don't have the time nor the resources to vet all of these earmark requests, and I believe them. But if that is the case, the answer isn't to shut the process down. The answer is, don't bring the bill to the floor with so many earmarks in it. But here instead of doing that, we're saying, ``All right, we can't vet these earmarks, so we're simply going to close our eyes and pretend that these earmarks aren't there and not allow anybody to tell anybody that they're there. Let's not allow anybody to come to the floor and offer them.'' That is a bad process which leads to bad results.

Now make no mistake, as I mentioned, what we're going through now--I don't think the majority party or the minority party is so much concerned about how many amendments are offered to the Agriculture bill as they are about setting a precedent for what might come later with the Defense appropriation bill. Remember, that is the important one with regard to earmarks for campaign contributors. If we allow a process to develop here where we shield Members and shield earmarks by not allowing Members to challenge them on the floor, then we will get more headlines like this one in the paper today, headlines that we see over and over and over again which have led to investigations by the Justice Department, which have led finally to our own Ethics Committee, finally, hopefully having launched its own investigation. It is unbelievable to me that we have this going on on the outside, and yet we will still go through a process where we allow Members of Congress here to earmark for their campaign contributors. And instead of allowing Members to come to the floor and actually challenge some of those, we shut down the process so they can't. We close the rule so very few earmark amendments, limitation amendments, are even allowed.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire as to the time remaining.

I thank the gentleman. I will talk specifically about the Ag appropriations bill. This bill has hundreds and hundreds of earmarks in it. I think there are maybe half a dozen total earmark limitation amendments that are allowed under this rule. That's simply not sufficient, Mr. Speaker. That's not sufficient. We should be allowing more. I understand the other side wants to hide the fact that 64 percent of the earmarks in this legislation are going to just 25 percent of the body, that the Appropriations Committee, which makes up just under 14 percent of this body, actually comes away with 56 percent of the earmarks.

I understand that those who are in charge of this legislation don't want that to be known, but it's still not right to limit the number of amendments that can be offered and to limit the time. So I would plead to not go forward with consideration of this bill under this rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.