Open Fuel Standard Act of 2011

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment reduces certain accounts in the bill specified in the amendment by 0.78 percent, and it fulfills a commitment which the minority and the majority had discussed earlier regarding WIC funding.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I do not have the expertise that my friend from Alaska has on it, but I wanted to say this. Earlier, or actually during the markup, Mr. Rehberg offered an amendment about the FDA using sound science. And I do believe, in this case, the FDA is using sound science in a process that was approved in January 2009, and they are going through a process right now to make sure that this product does not have a problem as respects human consumption. I think that, of course, should be the number one issue.

There are also some other considerations in terms of food supply, feeding more people, which is something that we all have debated on this bill. And also there is an issue with me about some jobs. So I'm concerned on this because it does seem like a pretty major change in my philosophy of sound science.

I yield to my friend from Alaska, who I think is out of time.

Reclaiming my time, I don't know all the ins and outs of this, but I do know that we're constantly getting on the FDA to use more sound science, less politics, and to have more transparency, and it appears that that's what they're doing here. And they may come out against genetically modified salmon, but they are just looking at it right now to determine.

And with respect to the food supply, if you could safely produce genetically modified fish, you could feed a great portion of the world with it. So I have some concerns on it, but I did want to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I don't quite understand what the problem is with the bill language at all.

Here's what it does: the report language, which this amendment tries to strike, it simply tells the Secretary of USDA to notify the committee of any trips related to the Know Your Farmer initiative and include the agenda and the cost to the American taxpayers. It doesn't prevent them from doing this. It simply says let us know. It also says put this information on the Web page. So if Know Your Farmer is that important, why would USDA have any opposition to this at all? In fact, I don't know that USDA does.

I also want to say that, as somebody who represents rural southeast Georgia, there is this nostalgic idea that somehow the further food travels the more evil it becomes. But if you look at a plate of fresh vegetables that you

may have eaten sometime today, that food traveled a long way. In fact, asparagus travels a long way. Lettuce--my friend, Mr. Farr, gave me an article earlier today. I think 59 percent of the lettuce in America comes from his one district.

Now, if we start confining that to Monterey County, it might be great for the folks in Monterey County, but I don't mind eating California lettuce because if the California farmers can do it for less money and I can get lettuce year round for less money, that's not a bad thing. So I think some of the assumption that food traveling is a bad idea, I think it's flawed in itself.

But I want to get back to this bill report language. It simply says to the USDA, let us know how much you're going to spend. And why is that so important? I want my friend from California to know that if you look through the USDA budget request for FY12, there's not one mention of Know Your Farmer--Know Your Food. It's an initiative. There has not been a budget request for it. If there was a budget request for it for $3 million or $30 million, then we could have something we could be debating about.

But what it is, is an initiative; and all we're asking is, if you go forward with this--and we don't stop them from going forward with it-- we're just saying we want to know how much it's going to cost. So I do not believe that it's bad report language at all, and I strongly oppose the amendment.

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

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure I answer this question, because I'm hearing from our colleague that she can't possibly imagine why we are against the program. We are against it because it's not authorized.

The President of the United States is now bombing in Libya. By the way, I voted with the Kucinich amendment because I feel very uncomfortable with an unauthorized bombing as the use of force in Libya. The Federal Government frequently obligates the taxpayers to new programs. Yet the United States Congress hasn't had an opportunity to vet these programs or to vote on them, so I, myself, don't understand why that is a problem that we can have this transparency.

Now, as I've listened to this, I've kind of felt, well, Know Your Farmer--Know Your Food is one of these harmless little Washington sort of ``feel good about things'' initiatives, but I'm beginning to think it's just one big databank. I don't know why the USDA needs to know all of this information about the farmers. I'm wondering about that. If we want to help farmers--and I've had the opportunity of representing lots of farmers for a long time--I'm going to give you seven things that I thought about in just sitting here during the course of the last speech.

Number one: This administration has declared war on the community banks, which are the fiber and the heart of small communities. That's where farmers get their loans. Farmers need credit. We need stability and banking laws to help farmers.

Number two: We need consistent regulations and regulations that don't send the EPA out on the farm to play ``I gotcha.'' You may know right now, Mr. Chairman, that for organic chickens--and I know my friend from California probably knows this--you have the FDA requiring that they be raised on a slab of concrete and the USDA saying, no, they can't be. So we have two Federal agencies with two different regulations for one product. Farmers need regulatory consistency.

Number three: We need an H-2A program. Absolutely, we've got to get labor out there and a good guest worker program that works.

Number four: We need free trade agreements. We have had sitting on the desk of the White House free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama, and this administration won't move them. That will create lots of markets for farmers.

Number five: We need estate tax relief. If you want to keep the family farm in the family, then get rid of the death tax so that it can be passed on to the next generation.

Number six: You need to have a good crop insurance program. More than any other farm program, farmers want a good crop insurance program.

Number seven: We need to cut the red tape out so that you can get to your local market. If you're a local farmer, it is impossible to sell right now to your local high school because of many Federal regulations. The small farmers can't compete with the big folks on this.

I want to say this about apples because the gentlewoman had mentioned apples. The average apples travel right now 2,500 miles to get to the consumer. Now, I don't find that horrible. We are a country of origin labeling laws, which our committee has debated for over a decade, and I don't know that it has made the world a better place. I think that consumers are actually driven by food safety, food taste and food price, and whether it comes from New York or whether it comes from the farmer down the street, those still are going to be the driving factors in making the decision. Carrots come 2,000 miles.

I would challenge my friends to look at Google food mileage and look at how much common, everyday food travels to get to your plate. What has it done? It has made America healthier. It has given us an abundant food supply, and it has given us a less expensive food supply.

But if we are serious about growing mom and pop farms--and I want to say

this to my friend from Maine--I am very interested in working with her on that. The seven things that I have listed, I can promise you, in any poll, farmers will choose before they choose to say what we really need to get farmers going in America is this program that is not authorized by the Congress, called Know Your Farmer.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Reserving my right to object, I just want to remind my friend about taking two bites of the 2,500-mile apple. I certainly do not object but----

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

We have had a very difficult time with the Food for Peace program already, and if this helps secure another supporter of the bill, we certainly would work with you on this amendment and support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I stand in opposition to the amendment, but with great admiration for the author of the amendment--but still disagreement.

Now, the previous speaker actually said that FDA funding has been slashed. FDA is funded both with direct appropriations and with fees. Last year, their funding level was $3.6 billion. This year, it is $3.64 billion. It is a little bit more. I would say it is level funding. But FDA funding has not been slashed, and it is very important for us to realize that.

Number two, let me show you something about the FDA funding history, Mr. Chairman. If you can see this, this chart actually goes back to 2000 and goes up to 2011. It has been nothing but a 10-year climb uphill for the FDA. And while a lot of people are saying the FDA funding is slashed, there is not even a slight dip in any of this 10- year funding chart. It is very important for us to realize that.

Now, the second point is, in the FDA hearing, I was concerned about FDA's ability to do food safety and to take on this big mission. Here is why:

You hear the figure of about 48 million foodborne illnesses--a very high number which we are enormously concerned about--but 20 percent of those illnesses are from known, or specified, pathogens. Nearly 60 percent of the illnesses from known pathogens comes from the Norovirus. So how do we address this?

The CDC tells us on their March 4 memo that appropriate hand hygiene is likely the most important method to prevent the Norovirus infection and to control transmission. Reducing any Norovirus present on hands is best accomplished by thorough handwashing. Now, in the FDA's 630-page budget request, there is not one mention of Norovirus. I believe that that's relevant.

The second point: The second highest cause of illness is salmonella; but under its authority, the existing authority, before the Food Safety Modernization Act was passed by the House, the FDA updated its own food safety as respect to salmonella. They are saying--and this was according to their own press release in July of last year--that as many as 79,000 illnesses and 30 deaths due to the consumption of eggs contaminated with salmonella may be avoided. That was last year. That was before a new bureaucracy. This bureaucracy, by the way, over a 10- year period of time, will cost $1.4 billion and will hire 17,000 new Federal employees.

The third highest cause of foodborne illnesses is clostridium. Again, in the FDA's 630-page budget request, it was only mentioned once.

I want to say something else that is very important. Do we believe that McDonald's and Kentucky Fried Chicken and Safeway and Kraft Foods--and any brand name that you can think of--aren't concerned about food safety? The food supply in America is very safe as the private sector self-polices because they have the highest motivation. They don't want to be sued. They don't want to go broke. They want their customers to be healthy and happy and to come back and give them repeat business.

Now, in response to the 2006 E. coli outbreak that happened in California with spinach, where three people died and 200 consumers were sickened, the California Leafy Green Products Handler Marketing Agreement was made. This is a private sector agreement which has done already 2,000 farm audits on a voluntary basis. Nearly 200 billion servings of lettuce and spinach and other leafy greens produced under this program have been surveyed. It is a successful private sector initiative, and those types of things happen all

the time in the private sector, but we're blind to it.

Here are some numbers from the CDC. It's very important because I think America loves to beat itself up over things all the time. The CDC numbers, Mr. Chairman: There are 48 million foodborne illnesses reported a year, 128,000 hospitalizations, 3,000 deaths. Those numbers are very high. I'm very concerned about it. That's why we spend a lot of money already on food safety.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I just want to continue with this, Mr. Chairman.

You have 311 million Americans eating three meals a day. That's 933 million meals eaten each day. That's nearly 1 billion food consumption events in our country, which is over 360 billion meals consumed. If you do the math in going back to the 48 million foodborne illnesses, according to the USDA, our food safety rate is 99.99 percent.

I want to address the 48 million, but what I also suggest to you is that we can spend $45 million more for FDA funding; we can spend $100 million more or we can spend $1 billion more, but I don't think you can increase this number of a 99.99 percent food safety rate according to the CDC. So, in these times of very tight budgets, it is very important to keep these facts in mind.

I am going to close with this statement by the Democrat Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, and this was as of yesterday. He said he is ``reasonably confident'' that U.S. consumers won't be faced with the same sort of E. coli outbreak now plaguing Germany. He goes on and explains why--because of the current food safety laws in place and the current food safety funding.

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

My dear friend from Texas has worked diligently to find something to work out with this. As I had indicated to her last night, we're trying to work on some alternatives and see if there's a way to do it. Just in the last 30 minutes, I've gotten something from GAO that says that you could actually cut out $45 million dollars from this program and that it would not affect the potential of it.

Right now what I will do--and I know my friend from California is rising. Let me yield to him because I know he probably has a different view, but I want to kind of keep the debate going.

Well, you've got 4 minutes from me. You could still strike the last word. That gives you 9 minutes.

If I could reclaim my time, I want to read this quote from GAO. It says: The committee may wish to consider reducing the request for this initiative for FY 12 by $45 million until the effectiveness of these

demonstration projects has been established.

And I want to say to my friend from Texas, we had some talks around this but not directly addressing it, not direct hearing; but I do remember and the gentleman from California might and I think Ms. Foley might remember that the Safeway in Washington, D.C., I believe has some sort of grant I believe to operate in an area that was considered a food desert, and I believe that that is one of the most profitable Safeways there is. Do either of you have a recollection of that? Thank you for pulling the rug out from underneath me this early.

Do you remember that, Mr. Farr, that discussion?

Was that not about food deserts?

Let me reclaim my time. GAO reported that a variety of approaches, including improving access to targeted foods, have the potential to increase the consumption of targeted food that could contribute to a healthy diet, but little is known about the effectiveness of these approaches.

And so I think what I would like to do, Mr. Chairman, is continue to oppose this; but knowing my good friend from Texas and from California will keep this as a priority, we'll talk about this. You know, the hour's late. The gentlewoman's been working on this for a long time, but I need a little more focus on it before I could accept it.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I want to say to the gentleman from Arizona, if I have time left over, I will yield you some. But you can also get your own 5 minutes if you want.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this.

I want to start out by saying that the committee has taken a really close look at this over the years. And I wish you could see, from where you are sitting, better the saturation level of broadband access in the United States of America. That's in the blue. As you can see, the entire country is mostly blue according to this.

But I would not want your eyes to just strain from there, so I will give you some numbers here:

New Jersey, 100 percent penetration; Florida, 99.9 percent penetration; New York, 99.8 percent; Georgia, 99.4 percent; Arizona, 98.2 percent.

This program is not necessary. And in a time when we're talking about saving money, we do not need to increase this account. The process is burdensome. We get lots of complaints from people who have had applications pending for a long time and they can't get their questions answered, or they get approved but they can't get their money. Their eligibility is too broad. And in many areas, it competes with private sector broadband service.

Now, the IG report had a number of things that they found. They found that this rural broadband program granted loans of $103 million to 64 communities near large cities, including $45 million loans to 19 suburban subdivisions within a few miles of Houston, Texas. That's hardly the intent of the program.

The IG report also found out that they were competing with preexisting broadband access in many places and found that 159 of the 240 communities associated with the loans--that's 66 percent--already had service. I will repeat that. Sixty-six percent of the communities who got grants already had service.

Now, there was a little criticism, and the program was supposed to be reformed. But the IG took another look at it and found that, in 2009, only eight out of the 14 recommendations had had action taken on them. Thirty-four of 37 applications for providers were in areas where there were already private operators offering service, 34 out of 37.

So when our committee took a look at this, we felt like the program needed changing. It did not need new money. So I must respectfully disagree with my good friends who are offering this and stand in opposition of the amendment.

With that, I yield to my friend from Arizona.

I now yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gibson).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very straightforward, and in a second I'm going to explain it in more detail.

For many, many years now, I and a group of bipartisan Members of this Congress have formed a coalition in an attempt to move farm bill reform forward, to try to end these large taxpayer subsidies that are going to a few, but very large, agribusinesses, subsidies that are not in fact helping family farmers, leading to greater consolidation in production of agriculture, driving up land values, making it more difficult for new beginning farmers to enter agriculture, and subsidies that are not fiscally responsible.

In light of the budget deficits that we're wrestling with, what better time to continue to move in the area of reform under the farm bill with this Agriculture appropriation bill, rather than waiting for the promise or hope that in a year or two in the reauthorization of another farm bill that this institution might finally come around and start making the long overdue changes.

Just to show you how perverted these farm programs have gotten, recently Brazil challenged our own domestic cotton subsidy program and prevailed in the WTO court. Now you would expect our rational response would be to reform our cotton subsidy program, to come into compliance with that WTO decision, to end these subsidies that you really can't justify here to our cotton producers, and we would solve this problem.

But that's not the approach that was taken. In fact, the administration recently set up a new subsidy program that is now going to subsidize Brazil cotton producers.

Let me repeat that. We are spending $147 million a year in order to bribe the Brazilian Government so that they don't enforce the sanctions that they're entitled to now because of our unwillingness to reform our own cotton subsidy program. That is wrong, and that is what my amendment would address. It would prohibit the use of funds through this Agriculture appropriation bill going to this new subsidy program to subsidize the Brazil cotton industry.

It just shows you what a pretzel our farm programs have turned this Congress into because of yet again the unwillingness for us to reform our own domestic title I subsidy programs. The answer to this is not to funnel out another $147 million a year until maybe we address this in the next farm bill, which could end up costing the American taxpayer over a half a billion dollars, when we can make that correction now, reform the domestic program, get out from under the WTO decision, start saving money by not sending $147 million a year to Brazil, and also start saving some money by reforming our own cotton domestic subsidy program.

That's the solution to this. That's something that we can fix tonight, rather than continuing this facade of maintaining these programs that many of us warned in the last farm bill would be challenged, and sure enough they did, and they're prevailing, and now they can apply economic sanctions against us.

So the time to act is now, not waiting for a year or two or whenever we're going to get around to reauthorizing

another farm bill; and the time to start saving some real money is this night, by passing the amendment that we're offering. We can save $147 million, we can reform the cotton subsidy program and save more taxpayer dollars, and we have that ability to be fiscally responsible and start making changes tonight.

I know what the argument on the other side will be: wait for the next farm bill; we'll take care of it then. Well, there is a lot that we are moving forward on this year on deficit reduction, and I for one think that the farm bill should also be open for scrutiny for potential savings to reduce our deficit.

But that's not what's being offered tonight in reforming the title I subsidy programs. Instead, most of the deep cuts are coming under the conservation title, the nutrition programs, certain key investments that we have to make to empower our farmers to be good stewards of the land, to reduce sediment and nutrient flows and the impact it has on the quality water supply that we need in this country, the protection of wildlife habitat. In fact, three out of every four farmers applying for conservation funding assistance today are turned away because of inadequacy of funds. That number will only explode because of the deep cuts coming in these other titles of the farm bill.

We have an opportunity to start making some changes under title I, the subsidy program, first by stopping the additional layer of subsidy that's been created where we're starting to subsidize other countries' farmers. Let's start making that change tonight.

I would encourage my colleagues to look closely at this amendment. This is the reasonable response that we should be taking. Let's not defer this decision any further. We can do that. And instead of encouraging any type of trade war or sanctions with Brazil, we should move forward in reforming the cotton subsidy program starting tonight.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time and ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Well, I thank my good friend from Oregon for his support of the amendment and for his support throughout the years in trying to lead the effort for meaningful farm bill reform.

Mr. Chairman, there is another solution to this that's going to be offered by our good friend and colleague from Arizona in just a little bit, Mr. Flake. He goes to the heart of the WTO decision to find out what changes we should be making in the cotton subsidy program to get out from under the thumb of Brazil, and I would support that amendment, and I hope my colleagues support his amendment as well because that is the ultimate solution to this: Instead of just cutting off the funding to Brazil right now, coming up with the cotton subsidy reform.

Now, let's remember the context in which we find ourselves this evening. Cotton payments are almost at a world record high price right now, yet these subsidies are still going out. There's just very little relationship right now with the subsidies under title I to the grain producers and cotton producers of our country and the price they receive in the marketplace. And in a time of tough budgets, when everyone else is being asked to take a haircut, whether you're a supporter of conservation programs or vital nutrition programs for our children and seniors, for us to not even look and consider the title I programs in the context of this agriculture appropriation, it's beyond the pale. There's just no justification to it.

These programs are outdated. They are impossible to justify with the American taxpayer, especially with the deficit reduction that all of us are interested in participating in this year. This is a small, but I think significant, step down the road of reform with the farm bill finding savings that can be applied to either other programs or for deficit reduction.

That's why I commend my colleague from Arizona for the amendment he's about to offer, but my friend from Oregon, too, will have some important amendments for us to consider, a payment limitation limiting the overall amount of subsidies that go to our producers. And folks, this is going to agribusiness, many of whom have mailing addresses in Manhattan, in Chicago, in San Francisco. These aren't even family farmers working the land, and they're some of the primary recipients of these agriculture subsidies.

Mr. Blumenauer's amendments address that, along with Mr. Flake's AGI cutoff at $250,000 a year. That's 250 thousand dollars of profit, and if you're an entity making a profit of over a quarter-million dollars a year, should you really still be receiving taxpayer subsidies for the business that you're running? I think not, and we'll have another opportunity to consider that later tonight.

So I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time and further explaining what this amendment is all about. And if we are serious about deficit reduction, if we are serious about reining in some of these programs that are tough to justify, then we should be serious about supporting this amendment tonight.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I appreciate his support of this amendment and the leadership that he's shown not only in committee but throughout the years when it comes to sensible farm bill reform.

The easiest way for us to come into trade compliance isn't by bribing the Brazilian government to get them to not enforce the sanctions that it can under WTO; it's fixing this domestic program, and doing it now rather than waiting years from now, as my colleague just pointed out, for the next farm bill. I know this isn't easy, and I know the committees wrestles with a lot of different constituent problems. I used to serve on the committee.

I'm not asking anyone here tonight to do anything differently than what I'm asking my producers to do in my district of Wisconsin and in my State, and that's taking a haircut. The reforms that I've been proposing through the years would require my district to take a haircut on these agriculture subsidies. It's not always easy standing up to groups that are getting something from the government and saying we can't afford it, nor can we justify it, with the market and with the deficit. But that is what it's going to take for this body to come together if we are going to be serious about deficit reduction and getting the spending under control.

I know that the Agriculture Committee has their hands full, and I know they would rather just defer this next decision until the next farm bill and put it off. But we don't know when that's going to be. But the thing we do know for certain is there is $147 million going out the door every year right now that we can stop doing tonight with the passage of this amendment.

I thank the gentleman for his comments in support of this amendment. And just one final point to my colleagues who have been supportive of trade agreements in the past.

Let's be honest with ourselves. If we're going to be a part of this WTO organization to establish rules of trade across borders, then let's not turn our back on an adverse decision that affects us. Let's, instead, comply and bring the cotton subsidy program into compliance. That is the answer to this. And let's end this nonsense of stacking subsidy program on top of subsidy program to just buy off and blackmail other governments who have a WTO decision in their hands.

And I cannot believe that this evening, when we're asking for huge, unprecedented cuts in conservation programs that will affect thousands of farmers throughout the country and unprecedented cuts with nutrition programs that will affect thousands of low-income families with their children, and seniors, saying, ``Tough luck. We're operating under tough budget times. You're just going to have to do without,'' when it comes to a simple amendment like this to save $147 million a year to bribe Brazil cotton producers and an unwillingness to go into the title I subsidy programs for cost savings, then what the heck are we doing around here?

It is just beyond the pale that we're willing to take the deep cuts-- and the chairman of the Agriculture Committee claimed a 12 percent cut in the farm bill, but he didn't say where those cuts were coming from. I'll tell you where it's not coming from. It's not coming from these subsidy programs. It's not coming from the cotton subsidy program that has gotten us into this problem. A handful of powerful cotton families are holding this institution hostage in order to maintain these subsidy programs that have benefited them for too long. Talk about benefiting the few at the expense of the many; this is the classic example of this Agriculture appropriation bill before us this evening. We can do a heck of a lot better.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I do rise in support of my friend, my colleague from Oregon's amendment this evening.

I am not sure if a $125,000 payment limitation is the right amount, but this isn't a new concept. There has been a lot of discussion about payment limitations under title I, and the gentleman is correct. The time to start doing this is now.

We can pretend that there aren't major policy changes being made under this agricultural appropriations bill, but there are. There are deep cuts in the conservation title. We just had a large consortium, a coalition of outdoor sporting groups, write a letter expressing their concern about the deep cuts in the voluntary and incentive-based land and water conservation programs and the impact that is going to

have on quality water and habitat protection or the ability of our farmers to be good stewards of their land. There is a huge demand for these programs which will be dramatically affected with the deep spending reductions that are contained in this appropriation bill.

The same goes for the nutrition programs. The huge funding reductions will have an impact on tens of thousands of families throughout the Nation, low-income children that rely on these programs, the Women, Infants, and Children program in particular, seniors on these nutrition programs. They are going to feel the effects of the decisions that we are making in this Agriculture appropriation bill.

Now, for so many of my colleagues to stand up this evening and claim we can't mess with title I program funding, we should wait for the next farm bill, I think, is disingenuous at best.

I ask my colleagues tonight, mohair subsidies? Is that the best we are going to be able to do? And I would submit to my colleagues that the reason why mohair was picked on is because they are not a particularly well-organized, sophisticated, politically-connected entity out there, so it was easy to go after them, as my colleague from Utah showed with his amendment.

But we have known for a long time now that these subsidy programs under title I do distort the marketplace. They do distort our trade policy, as my Brazil cotton subsidy amendment highlighted a little earlier this evening. And we are long past time to start making these revisions in light of the huge budget deficits that we are facing.

When 80 percent of the producers in our Nation get nothing under title I subsidies--not a dime--that leaves a very small group of entities that is receiving the bulk of these taxpayer subsidies, and we all know who they are. They're the big five grain-producing entities of this country--corn, soybeans, cotton, rice, and wheat. They're the ones who are receiving the bulk of these title I subsidy programs.

Under the farm bill, there are multiple programs which they can be eligible for: from the LDP Program, to Countercyclical, to the new ACRE Program under the last farm bill, to the Direct Payment Program. Many of us were arguing in the last farm bill whether it was necessary to go forward with direct payments that bear no relationship to current market prices--all based on past production history.

Today, we are facing world record commodity prices in these categories. Not only did we continue them, but we increased the direct payments, and we're allowing double entities on the same fund to qualify for the direct payments. Yet none of that is being discussed in the context of this Agriculture appropriations bill.

As to my original point, I'm not sure if 125 is the right level, but the concept isn't new, and it's definitely a step in the right direction. I think it's trying to bring more sanity to the title I subsidy programs, which we shouldn't be delaying until the next farm bill which may or may not happen next year. We know it's tough to get major pieces of legislation through during an election year, let alone a Presidential election year. It could be years from now before we have the next farm bill ready to go with any potential change.

So I commend my colleague for offering this amendment and for continuing the discussion, and I encourage my colleagues to seriously consider supporting it. I'm sure the Senate will have some ideas, too, on things that they recommend.

This, I think, is appropriate and it's not new; and to claim that we shouldn't touch title I, yet we're eviscerating virtually the rest of the farm bill in what we're doing with this appropriations bill, I think is disingenuous.

I would be happy to yield to my friend from Oregon.

I yield back the balance of my time.

We accept the amendment.

It's my pleasure to join you in this amendment. I actually have the best salmon caught in the lower 48 in Monterey Bay. A history of fishing in Monterey, used to be the sardine capital of the world. We're very sensitive to the fact that people are trying to mess around with the natural process and the Food and Drug Administration is set to approve genetically engineered salmon through a process the FDA uses to approve new drugs for animals. There's something wrong with the fact that in the approval process our food is now treated the same as animal drugs.

If approved, genetically engineered salmon would be the first genetically modified animal allowed onto the American dinner plate. Approval of genetically engineered salmon poses serious threats to human health, our fishing communities, and our wildlife stock fish.

They have no long-term studies on the safety of genetically engineered fish. There could be grave, unintended consequences on human health. Preliminary studies show that the compounds in genetically engineered salmon may be linked to cancer and severe drug allergies.

We've seen that the dominant method of raising salmon in other parts of the world is an open net, these pens in the ocean, and farmed fish escape these facilities every year. The impact of genetically engineered salmon escaping could be detrimental to wild stocks. The list goes on and on and on.

Our fishing communities are already facing challenges, and genetically engineered salmon would have an additional effect of lowering wild salmon prices, as already seen with normal farmed salmon. Lower prices, combined with declines in wild salmon stocks, would be economically detrimental to our fishermen, our fishing culture, and our coastal communities. It is unnecessary to genetically engineer salmon.

For these reasons, I support Mr. Young's amendment that prohibits funds to the FDA to approve genetically engineered salmon.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I strongly support this amendment because the language in the bill--I'm going to read it to you. It's one paragraph, but it's the most draconian language because we've never done this before ever in an ag bill. It says: ``The committee directs the Department to provide an electronic notification to the committee at least 72 hours prior to any travel in support of the Know Your Farmer--Know Your Food initiative, and such notification shall include the agenda of the entire trip along with the cost to U.S. taxpayers. Additionally, the committee directs the Department to post media advisories for all such trips on its Web site, and that such advisories include the same information.''

My God, we don't do this to know your soldier, to know your veteran, to know your school teacher, to know anybody else that's in the public service, to know your law enforcement officer; and yet they're doing this for Know Your Farmer?

This program, as Mr. Kingston pointed out, we just had the ag report come out and I'm very proud that one county in my district does $4 billion worth of agriculture, as pointed out in that report, that grows 59 percent of all the lettuce consumed in the United States in one county in California that I represent. Part of that is this program now that they're doing, which is Know Your Farmer--Know Your Food.

Consumers can go with their cell phones into a grocery store; and because of the barcode there, they can ZIP it and it immediately comes up the farmer who grew that food saying this is who I am and this is where I grew it and this is how many days it takes to get to you, and all the things you might want to--if we're going to educate people about nutrition, I can't think of a more exciting way to do it.

And to require that the Department has to essentially do this gestapo, looking at every time you move you have to report to a higher authority on your initiative and on your entire trip and the agenda and cost, we don't do that for anybody else in the Federal Government, and I don't think we should do it for our farmers or for our members of the U.S. Department of Agriculture who are supporting our farmers.

So I support this amendment very strongly.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition because I cannot, for the life of me, understand why you are so afraid of Know Your Farmer-- Know Your Food. They say, well, we need to have this program authorized. My God, we went to war without authorizing it. We spent all that money, and half the people don't even question it. And you want to question Know Your Farmer--Know Your Food?

I think this is a direct attack on the White House initiative, which is about

nutrition, which is about trying to get people--I mean, we talked about this yesterday, about how you have places in this country that are food deserts. You have places where there are no grocery stores. There are 7-Elevens. They don't have fresh fruits and vegetables. People can't go down to a local store and find fresh fruits and vegetables.

So what do we do? This committee puts money into the USDA to help farmers markets get established in these tough areas, to encourage farmers to come in, and at the same time teach people who have never shopped for fresh fruits and vegetables, never been to a farmers market.

We have actually tied in, in my district, the issuing of food stamps and WIC vouchers so that they will spend them right there, and 65 percent of the income that comes to the farmers at the farmers markets comes from them.

So this is all part of the initiatives to get people to know about agriculture. Milk doesn't come from a carton. Food doesn't come from a grocery store. It gets grown somewhere by a farmer, he and his wife. And we are trying to get kids to know something about agriculture. We are putting in school gardens. All of this is part of Know Your Farmer--Know Your Food, and you want to strike it.

What is this? Is this some kind of conspiracy that you are afraid of? People might learn a little bit about where food comes from in America, and there is organic food and that you have choices and you just don't have to eat everything that is packaged and processed and full of salts and sugars and additives and preservatives?

What are we afraid of? What are we afraid of? My God, to strike it, or tell the department that they can't do this, I think it is not in our best intentions, and it is not smart nutrition.

We are trying to get people, I know, because I am trying to lose weight and it is a very hard thing to change your character, to change your eating habits. Unless we do that, we are going to grow a lot of Americans who aren't going to be very healthy because they don't know their farmer and they don't know their food. And if you strike this ability for the department to go out and do that kind of outreach, we are going to have a less healthy America.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

I just want to point out that this amendment doesn't save one penny.

This amendment doesn't save one penny. Ironically, we just returned from the White House summer congressional picnic, and people ate food there. At every table, it listed where the food came from. Indeed, I remember because I went to the ice cream place and there was a stack of honey that came from the White House, that has a White House label on it, and it's a gift that the First Lady gives to visiting dignitaries from around the world as a sample of American honey grown at the White House. We just experienced Know Your Farmer--Know Your Food not more than an hour ago.

This amendment does nothing but be mean.

I yield to the chairman, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

Go ahead. I'll just strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, thank you.

I have concerns about where the money comes from as all these bills are offsetting, but I think that the purpose here should be funded. We have this whole initiative--and some of it has been attacked tonight-- about trying to get healthy foods grown by American farmers to people in areas that are called food deserts, as the gentlelady from Texas pointed out. There are places that people just can't go. There isn't a grocery store. There aren't fresh fruits and vegetables.

I mean, think of the 7-Eleven. That's the kind of convenience stores that are around. Even the one we use up here a couple of blocks away is very limited in the amount of fresh fruits and vegetables it has.

So what this initiative is all about, and it's the President's initiative too, is trying to get food--it's an educational process. I think the hardest cultural--this is what I learned from living in other cultures in the Peace Corps. The hardest thing to do is to get people to change their eating habits. We all know that struggle when we go on a diet. So it takes a lot of education. It takes a lot of support, but it also takes the need to have access to it.

You need to have access to the fresh fruits and vegetables, and they can either come to you in a farmers market or you can go to them. But if you have neither a farmers market and there's nothing to go to, you have no option. And that's what this amendment is about, getting some money into the program that will be able to outreach and getting good, nutritious food to families who most need it who, without that, have a good chance of not growing up healthy, high incidence of obesity, high incidence of diabetes, high-risk issues that cost a lot of money for the taxpayers when they have to go on dialysis or have to be under treatment.

So we have spent many years here in the committee--and the chairman knows it very well--of looking at how do we prevent this from happening when the choices are there. These are preventable diseases and preventable ill health situations, but we've got to reach out and do it, and that's what this amendment does and I think it deserves support.

I have a recollection of that.

Yes.

Yes, it was. But remember Ms. Kaptur's amendment in our committee of trying to subsidize farmers markets to go into high-risk areas to get it started so that it does develop a market approach and can be sustainable, but we reach out and do those kinds of things.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

I wasn't going to rise on this amendment--and I probably shouldn't--but this discussion just bugs me.

I represent more productive agriculture in my district than anyone in this room--$4 billion in just one county--and I represent a bunch of counties. What we grow are specialty crops. We grow 85 crops in Monterey County. As we were talking about earlier, 58 percent of all the lettuce in the United States is grown in that county. We grow 35 different varieties of wine grapes, and we are the leading counties in strawberry production and in a bunch of berry productions. In fact, our motto there is that we're the ``salad bowl capital of the world,'' which includes all of the ingredients in salad--celery, lettuce. All those things, we grow.

Do you know what? They don't get a dime of support from the Federal Government. If the market falls, they eat it. If a disaster comes in, they eat it.

So the reason these amendments are brought up by Mr. Kind and Mr. Blumenauer year after year is that, frankly--do you know what?--the farm bill doesn't address this issue. It really doesn't. It's too tough--it's too politically tough--and there are too many vested interests in this town. You have a whole bunch of agriculture out there, and some people would suggest that more than all of the money created in commodity supports is in what they call ``specialty crops,'' and that's the stuff you eat all the time.

You can't have this bifurcated world out there where you have a bunch of people who are essentially on welfare and a bunch of people who are just assuming all the risk. What really surprises me is that, with the conservative side of the aisle over here that really is driven toward market approaches to solve problems, this is not a market approach. This is a subsidy. It's a taxpayer subsidy, and it's going to very wealthy people in some cases.

So I am rising to say this amendment, as in the past, gets defeated; but

these gentlemen have an issue, and I just beg with the leaders. I've got great respect for the ranking member of the Ag Committee here on our side of the aisle. I know he can wrestle with these problems. He's a CPA. He knows these things.

I think the handwriting is on the wall. If the conservatives on your side of the aisle would take this on as an issue that Americans are really going to address, we may get some progress on the farm bill. If you don't, you're abandoning your marketing concepts, and you're abandoning what is needed in modern America.

Just remember, that apple, that pear, that banana in there, that celery, the strawberries--the list goes on and on with all the fruits and vegetables--they don't get any of these payments. So let's not have a bifurcated agricultural production out there where half of it depends on taxpayer payments and the other half has to just live by market forces. Let's have everybody a lot more influenced by market forces.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, Pigford v. Glickman was a class action discrimination suit between the USDA and black farmers. The suit was filed by an estimated 2,000 black farmers who said that USDA discriminated against them in loan programs. A settlement agreement was approved in 1999.

The suit claimed that USDA discriminated against black farmers on the basis of race and failed to investigate or properly respond to complaints from 1983 to 1997.

The deadline for submitting a claim was September 12, 2000. However, a large number of applicants filed late and reported deficiencies in representation by class counsel.

Consequently, the 2008 farm bill (PL 110-246) permitted any claimant who had submitted a late-filing request under Pigford and who hadn't previously obtained a determination on the merits of their claim should obtain a determination. A maximum of $100 million in mandatory spending was made available for payments of these claims in the 2008 farm bill.

The multiple claims that were subsequently filed by over 25,000 black farmers were consolidated into a single case, In re Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation (commonly referred to as Pigford II).

On February 18, 2010, Attorney General Holder and Secretary Vilsack announced a $1.25 billion settlement of these Pigford II claims.

The Pigford II settlement provides both a fast-track settlement process and high payments to potential claimants who go through a more rigorous review and documentation process.

Potential claimants can seek the fast-track payments of up to $50,000 plus debt relief, or choose the longer process damages of up to $250,000.

Finally, our Nation's black farmers who were discriminatecl against by their own government have received some modicum of justice.

Despite years of political gamesmanship that prevented us from finding a fair resolution, thousands of families who have waited for the settlements will now receive them.

We cannot deny them this basic justice.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Will the gentleman yield?

Could you tell me where in the bill this has anything to do with what you're talking about?

That's not in the amendment that we have.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I yield to the gentlelady from Ohio.

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlelady for her attention to this matter, both gentleladies for their attention to this matter and for standing up with and for the best interests of agriculture.

Mr. Farr. Mr. Chair, I submit the following:

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 2112--Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug

Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012

(rep. rogers, r-ky)

The Administration has serious concerns about the content

of H.R. 2112, making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural

Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related

Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30,

2012, and for other purposes. The Administration is committed

to ensuring the Nation lives within its means and reducing

the deficit so that the Nation can compete in the global

economy and win the future. That is why the President put

forth a comprehensive fiscal framework that reduces the

deficit by $4 trillion,

supports economic growth and long-term job creation, protects

critical investments, and meets the commitments made to

provide dignity and security to Americans no matter their

circumstances.

While overall funding limits and subsequent allocations

remain unclear pending the outcome of ongoing bipartisan,

bicameral discussions between the Administration and

congressional leadership on the Nation's long-term fiscal

picture, the bill provides insufficient funding for a number

of programs in a way that undermines core government

functions and investments key to economic growth and job

creation. Programs adversely affected by the bill include:

Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). The Administration

strongly objects to the level of funding provided for

nutrition programs that are critical to the health of

nutritionally at-risk women, infants, children, and elderly

adults. The proposed funding levels would lead to hundreds of

thousands of participants being cut from the Special

Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and

Children (WIC) and the Commodity Supplemental Food Program,

and reduce Federal support for food banks. These cuts would

undermine efforts to prevent hunger and support sound

nutrition for some of the most vulnerable members of our

society.

Food Safety. The Administration is concerned with the

funding provided in the bill for the Department of

Agriculture's (USDA's) Food Safety and Inspection Service

(FSIS) which will significantly hamper USDA's ability to

inspect food processing plants and prevent food borne

illnesses and disease such as E. coli and Salmonella from

contaminating America's food supply. The Committee's

recommendation may require the agency to furlough employees

including frontline inspectors which make up over 80 percent

of FSIS staff. By reducing FSIS inspections, food processing

plants may be forced to reduce line speeds, which could lead

to decreasing product output and profits, as well as plant

closures.

Healthy Food Financing Initiative (HFFI). The

Administration is concerned that the bill does not support

HFFI, which is a key initiative to combat childhood obesity.

HFFI will expand USDA's activities to bring healthy foods to

low-income Americans and increase the availability of

affordable, healthy foods in underserved urban and rural

communities by bringing grocery stores and other fresh food

retailers to ``food desert'' communities where there is

little or no access to healthy food.

Research. The bill provides insufficient funds for USDA

research programs, which are needed to help solve food

production, safety, quality, energy and environmental

problems. By reducing funding for the Agricultural Research

Service to its lowest level since 2004 as well as

inadequately funding the Nation's competitive grant program,

the bill will hinder the Department's ability to develop

solutions to address current as well as impending critical

national and international challenges.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The Administration is

concerned that the funding level in the bill and resulting

staff reductions will severely limit the FDA's ability to

protect the public's health, assure the American consumer

that food and medical products are safe, and improve

Americans' access to safe and less costly generic drugs and

biologics.

Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The

Administration strongly objects to the funding level for

CFTC, as it would cause a cut in staffing levels and

seriously undermine CFTC's ability to protect investors and

consumers by effectively policing the futures and swaps

marketplace through its current market oversight and

enforcement functions. Moreover, the funding level would

significantly curtail the timely, effective implementation of

the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection

Act, including new CFTC responsibilities to regulate the $300

trillion swaps derivatives market.

International Food Aid. The Administration opposes the

level of funding provided for the Food for Peace Title II

international food aid program as it would severely limit the

United States' ability to provide food assistance in response

to emergencies and disasters around the world. Given a

statutory floor on non-emergency development food aid, a

reduction would be borne entirely by the emergency component

of the program, and would prevent distribution of emergency

food aid to over 1.1 million beneficiaries.

In addition, the bill includes the following problematic

policy and language issues:

Restrictions on Finalizing USDA Regulations. The

Administration opposes the inclusion of section 721 of the

bill, which effectively prevents USDA's Grain Inspection,

Packers and Stockyards Administration from finalizing a rule

on conduct that would violate the Packers and Stockyards Act

of 1921. The final rule has not yet been published and any

concerns about the rule are better addressed through the

standard rulemaking process than through an appropriations

rider.

Restrictions on FDA Regulations and Guidance. The

Administration strongly opposes section 740 of the bill,

which would undermine or nullify FDA statutory standards that

have been in place for decades and that are essential to

protect the health of Americans. The provision would unduly

limit the factors that FDA considers in determining the best

ways to protect the public from unsafe foods; protect the

safety of the blood supply from HIV, West Nile Virus, and

other infections; ensure the safety of infant formula;

protect patients from drugs and medical devices that have not

been shown to be safe and effective; assure that food

labeling and health claims on foods are accurate; and reduce

youth use of tobacco products and otherwise reduce illness

and death caused by tobacco use.

WTO Trade Dispute. The Administration is concerned by a

provision in section 743 that would eliminate payments that

are being made as part of the mutually agreed settlement of a

World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute regarding U.S.

domestic cotton supports and the export credit guarantee

program. The framework serves as a basis to avoid trade-

related countermeasures by Brazil that are authorized by the

WTO until the enactment of successor legislation to the

current Farm Bill. Under the agreement, the United States is

committed to fund technical assistance and capacity-building

support for Brazil's cotton sector. The bill's provision

preempts the resolution process and would open the door to

retaliation negatively affecting U.S. exports and interests.

The Administration strongly opposes inclusion of

ideological and political provisions that are beyond the

scope of funding legislation.

The Administration looks forward to working with the

Congress as the fiscal year 2012 appropriations process moves

forward to ensure the Administration can support enactment of

the legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment emanates from claims that were filed subsequent to a press conference held by then-Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman in 1995, who said that the USDA was discriminating against black farmers. I believe that happened. Their estimate at the USDA at that time was that there were approximately 3,000 black farmers who would file claims under what resulted in a consent decree in the late nineties.

The 3,000 estimate became 22,551 claims of discrimination. But according to the census, there are 18,000 black farmers. According to the testimony of the president of the Black Farmers Association before the Judiciary Committee, there are 18,000 black farmers. Well, the 18,000 black farmers estimating 3,000 claims of discrimination became 22,551 claims. That was Pigford I. And $1.05 billion was paid out then to settle all of the claims that were there. There was an argument made that others didn't get filed. But it always was a number greater than the actual number of black farmers. And you can't have more black farmers discriminated against than there actually are.

They tried to open up Pigford II. This Congress didn't act on it in an affirmative way between the House and the Senate until late last fall in a lame duck session. President Barack Obama introduced legislation as a junior Senator from Illinois in 1989 and 2007, and was instrumental in pushing this through in a lame duck session that appropriated $1.15 billion to pay out claims.

Now we have not 3,000 claims. We still have 18,000 black farmers. Now we have 94,000 claims and report after report of fraudulent claims and marketing this as perpetuation of a fraud across this country. And my amendment shuts off the funding that would be used to administer or to fund the balance of these Pigford II claims, which this Congress must investigate the fraud that's here.

By the way, Shirley Sherrod, who was fired by the Secretary of Agriculture, was the largest recipient and the largest civil rights claim in the history of America, with $13 million for her claim. Three days later, Tom Vilsack hired her to work for the USDA. Later, he fired her. Later, he hired her back. Then she sued Andrew Breitbart. All of these things are information that we need to find out. This Congress cannot be paying out another $1.15 billion in good money going after bad claims. We have reports and videotape. One is a class counsel who had his own videotape and says that he has 3,000 clients who have filed discrimination claims, and least 10 percent of them are fraudulent claims. A class counsel, who was included in this second agreement, which by the way, the court has not finally approved.

So, Mr. Chairman, this amendment shuts off the funding that would be used to pay these claims, the funding that would be used to administer these claims, and it gives this Congress an opportunity to look into what has been done to the taxpayer here in America. And so I urge adoption of my amendment. I believe that I have explained what it amounts to, although it has been very intensively in the news over the last year or so.

I would urge its adoption.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is an amendment that comes and there's an Iowa focus on this that affects the whole country. We have had a practice that began experimentally in Iowa by Planned Parenthood of issuing telemed abortions by distributing RU-486, the abortion pill, what is also known as mifepristone, distributing it through a means of setting up a television monitor and it circumventing the requirement in Iowa that they be seen by a doctor. A doctor sits remotely on the other side of the Skype screen, so to speak, and interviews the potential mother, who if once she answers the questions that the doctor asks and they record it under film that they've protected themselves perhaps from liability, he clicks the mouse on the one end and it opens a drawer underneath the screen on the other end and out rolls the abortion pill, RU-486.

I am very concerned about the robo distribution of abortion pills in Iowa or anywhere else. Some of us signed a letter, 70 of us, to Kathleen Sebelius and asked if they had distributed grants for telemedicine to any of the abortion

providers, including Planned Parenthood. Their response came back in the affirmative, that they had issued several grants to Planned Parenthood; and these funds, as near as we can determine, are being used to provide telemedicine for the robo abortions, robo Skype abortions as I've described.

This amendment provides that none of the funds made available in this $15 million telemedicine line item that's in this appropriations bill shall be used for the purpose of purchasing, prescribing, dispensing, procuring, or otherwise administering mifepristone, commonly known as

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, I believe I did, but I would restate that there's a line item in the bill that provides $15 million to go to grants for telemedicine.

The amendment that I have put out here says: ``None of the funds made available by this Act may be used for mifepristone, commonly known as RU-486, for any purpose.''

And so I've specified why I'm concerned and why I address this language to the broader bill, but because there are grant funds available for telemedicine in the bill, that's why I'm concerned that this application that I've used could well go, and has gone according to Kathleen Sebelius, to those grants.

If the gentleman doesn't agree, I would think he neither would disagree with the amendment because, therefore, it wouldn't have an effect by the gentleman's interpretation.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of my amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I have an amendment at the desk.

I thank the Chairman, and I thank the Agriculture appropriations subcommittee for their kindness and their deliberateness in this very long evening and as well the ranking member along with the chairman.

This is a simple amendment about food and about helping more Americans get healthy food. There is not one of us that does not understand how dry and difficult a desert is. This amendment is simply about food deserts in rural and urban areas.

This amendment provides a $5 million increase to the Office of the Secretary to allow assistance to provide relief to those who are suffering from the lack of access to food quality.

This is a healthy child, we would hope. That healthy child needs to have good food. These funds will increase the availability of affordable healthy food in underserved urban and rural communities, particularly through the development or equipping of grocery stores and other healthy food retailers.

Fast-food restaurants and convenience stores line the blocks of low- income neighborhoods, offering few if any healthy options. In rural areas, there may be no access at all. This particularly impacts African American and Hispanic communities and, as I indicated, rural communities.

This climate in the difficult times that we have requires us to be able to

allow families to have access to good food. We also have the issues of obesity and as well nutrition. Food deserts impact many districts, and I will say to you that Texas in particular has fewer grocery stores per capita than any other State.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 32 percent of all children in Texas face a nutrition issue. Targeting assistance to food desert areas will provide healthy food to affected areas, open new markets for farmers, create jobs, and bolster development in distressed communities.

Farmers markets are a good idea, but farmers markets sometimes are difficult to find in our communities. Again, let me emphasize, this is about rural and urban areas. This initiative will provide for the availability of healthy food alternatives to some 23 million people living in food deserts.

Let me just suggest to you that these families that we care for, families, young families of the military, many of you have heard stories where the military families are on food stamps. Many of them live in areas beyond their bases, and some of their families are back home in rural and urban areas. This amendment, which will provide an $8 million gift back to the government, will give a mere $5 million to provide the opportunity for those food desert loopholes, if you will-- rural places in our Nation where there are big gaps with access to food, and as well urban areas--to have access to the opportunity for good and healthy food.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time and ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment that addresses the question of helping those who need healthy food.

I thank the Chairman for this opportunity to explain my amendment to H.R. 2112, which will reach back into the bill to increase the funding for the Office of the Secretary by $5 million dollars. This increase, provided for by reducing the funding for operations and maintenance of Buildings and Facilities in order to fund President Obama's Healthy Food Funding Initiative, HFFI. Supporting this amendment will not only fund an important pilot program, but save the government $8 million.

Funding HFFI will increase the availability of affordable, healthy foods in underserved urban and rural communities, particularly through the development or equipping of grocery stores and other healthy food retailers.

These ``food deserts'', communities in which residents do not have access to affordable and healthy food options, disproportionally affect African American and Hispanic communities. Fast food restaurants and convenience stores line the blocks of low income neighborhoods, offering few, if any healthy options.

Many of my colleagues across the aisle have made arguments about the economic climate, and the need for budgetary cuts, and I agree that we must work to reduce the deficit. We cannot, however, continue to make irresponsible cuts to programs for the underserved, lower income families, and minorities.

Since the mid-1970s, the prevalence of overweight and obesity has increased sharply for both adults and children, and obesity is a grave health concern for all Americans. However, food deserts have taken a toll on low income and minority communities and exacerbated growing obesity rates and health problems.

According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, 80 percent of black women and 67 percent of black men are overweight or obese. African American children from low income families have a much higher risk for obesity than those in higher income families.

The CDC also estimates African American and Mexican American adolescents ages 12-19 are more likely to be overweight, at 21 percent and 23 percent respectively, than non-Hispanic white adolescents who are 14 percent overweight. In children 6-11 years old, 22 percent of Mexican American children are overweight, compared to 20 percent of African American children and 14 percent of non-Hispanic white children.

Food deserts have greatly impacted my constituents in the 18th Congressional District, and citizens throughout the state of Texas. Texas has fewer grocery stores per capita than any other state. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, identified 92 food desert census tracts in Harris County alone. These areas are subdivisions of the county with between 1,000 to 8,000 low income residents, with 33 percent of people living more than a mile from a grocery store.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 32 percent of all children in Texas are overweight or obese. These statistics underscore the staggering affect food deserts have on the health of low income and minority communities. In Houston and other cities across the country, local programs have proved that well targeted funding and assistance can create viable business outcomes and increase access to healthy food.

Targeting federal financial assistance to food desert areas through the Healthy Food Funding Initiative will provide more healthy food to affected neighborhoods, open new markets for farmers, create jobs, and bolster development in distressed communities.

The Healthy Food Funding Initiative is not a handout, or a crutch. Funding through this program is intended to provide financial and technical assistance in support of market planning, promotion efforts, infrastructure and operational improvements, and increase availability of locally and regionally produced foods.

This initiative will increase the availability of healthy food alternatives to the 23.5 million people living in food deserts nationwide. Yes, we must work toward reducing the deficit, but cutting programs that provide healthy food to those who simply do not have access to nutritional options, is not the way.

First of all, let me thank Mr. Farr and Mr. Kingston. I had hoped my friend from Georgia could see in his heart that this is a very small microcosm for a very large issue, and that is that food deserts do exist and the families that are impacted, number of families that include those who are members of the United States military from the very youngest child.

I have been fiscally responsible, if that is the case, to narrow this very well, and I have no quarrel with individual chains engaging in marketing outreach. But I'm talking about hard-to-serve areas that include urban and rural areas where there are no food chains to engage in any benevolent assistance.

I'm also suggesting to you that if you look at the landscape of districts across the Nation, just take for example my district is number 32 in regards to food insecurity, but there are 31 above me. The people have limited access to food.

I enjoy the point that Mr. Farr made about Ms. Kaptur's farmers markets. This will infuse energy into the farmers markets. This will create jobs for a limited amount of pilot resources. This is the right thing to do. This is to take a great land like America and say we want everybody to minimally have access to good, healthy, nutritious food.

So I would ask for the humanitarian consideration of my friends on the other side of the aisle. I thank the gentleman from California for his instructiveness and the work of the members of this Appropriations Committee, and I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, the Jackson Lee amendment. It fills the gaping hole of the lack of food by providing resources to cure the problem of food deserts.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I move to strike the last word.

The opportunities for Members to have amendments is a privilege that should not be denied. And I respect my colleague from Iowa for his right to offer an amendment. But it is tragic and disappointing that my friend from Iowa, who served with me on the Judiciary Committee, would take this time to demean the tragic lives that black farmers, Native Americans farmers, and others impacted have experienced over several decades; to raise the name of Shirley Sherrod, whose eloquent story and painful story of the loss of her father in the segregated South, who was murdered, and the family had to survive after his tragic murder because of his color--to my knowledge, a farmer, man of the Earth.

I sat on the Judiciary Committee for a number of years, and this legislation proceeded through the Judiciary Committee. I join the gentleman in wanting to ensure the adequacy of the implementation of this settlement. I want to stand alongside a transparent system. But this was a lawsuit that many of the litigants died before they even got to the settlement. This is the American way--a battle in the courts, a settlement--had it not been for the good will of Members of this body on both sides of the aisle, members of the Congressional Black Caucus who joined with members of the Democratic Caucus, Republicans, past Presidents, who were concerned and interested in the devastation tragedy of the segregated South and a segregated Department who treated black farmers in a disparate way from others. Individuals who went bankrupt, who lost farms because they could not get the same access to agricultural loans that others could. And in the wisdom of the court system and the wisdom of this body and the wisdom of a settlement, relief was brought not before many had died and their heirs, trembling, limited, scattered, few, were able to come together and receive the funding.

I'm sorry Mr. King was not at the signing of that final settlement and to see those historic families, patriots, who expressed nothing but love for this country. What a tragedy to come and interfere with an existing settlement. I don't even know how he can put this amendment up on the floor. It's late. We're losing our voices here. But I would ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to recognize that there's nothing wrong with ensuring that the Agriculture Department and the surrounding entities that are dealing with the distribution of these funds be transparent and without fraud.

But it would be absurd for any Member to join and to vote to interfere with the legitimate settlement of legitimate claims that have evidenced the pain and devastation and disregard and disparate treatment and discrimination and unconstitutional treatment of farmers who we claim on this floor today to love. Farming is part of the American fabric. And if there's any

body of people who understands farms, it is the ex-slaves who worked for 400 years without payment in the cotton fields of the South.

I ask my colleagues to consider opposing this amendment, and I rise respectfully to oppose it.

I yield back the balance of my time.