Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman and wanted to rise today for a colloquy. And what this has to do with is some poor language that's in the bill, some on the House side and some on the Senate side. But the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd) had put language in the bill that directs the Corps to report back to Congress an outline of the study based on the findings of the National Research Council workshop on water issues in Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint and Alabama-Coosa- Tallapoosa River basins, and we in the Georgia and Alabama and Florida delegations are in support of that language.

However, there was also some language that was put in by Mr. Shelby on the Senate side that directs the Corps to report the critical yield of Federal reservoirs on the ACF-ACT, and the majority of Members from the Georgia delegation are opposed to that, and it's a bipartisan opposition. It's something that we are very concerned about. We feel strongly that the Corps of Engineers' water manuals need to be updated and that what the Senator from Alabama has put on the bill on the Senate side will hurt that.

So what I would like to do, if possible, is ask the ranking member and the chairman to keep an eye on this issue and hopefully, as this thing develops, oppose the language that's been put in the bill on the Senate side and support the language that Mr. Boyd put in on the House side. Those two bits of language are not in opposition of each other. You can support one without the other.

But the one that we have the most heartburn about in terms of the bipartisan Georgia delegation is the Shelby language on the Senate side.

I would like to yield to anybody who would like to speak.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today alarmed at the spending that is going on in Washington, D.C. More specifically, I want to talk about the President's ignoring article II, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution that says, when you appoint somebody in a significant role who is part of your administration, you need to have the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. Irrespective of this, President Obama has named 33 czars outside of the traditional infrastructure of Washington.

Now, in its day, czarist Russia had 18 czars over a 300-year period of time, but here, in a 7-month period of time, President Obama now has 33 czars. I guess his vision is a czarist America. I'm not sure. We have a Great Lakes czar, a regulatory czar, an automobile czar, a Guantanamo closure czar, a TARP czar, a new TARP czar, all kinds of different czars, none of whom have gone in front of the U.S. Senate.

Now, why is going in front of the U.S. Senate important aside from the constitutional requirement?

Well, for one thing, you get an automobile czar who has got some shady business dealings--a 31-year-old who doesn't know a spark plug from a lug nut. Why do you think this person could turn around Detroit? Well, we found out now he's on his way out the door ignominiously. Maybe that embarrassment to the administration could have been prevented had this 31-year-old boy genius auto czar had to sit in front of the Senate as do judicial appointees and cabinet appointees.

I think a lot of people think, well, yeah, the Senate approves Cabinet members, but they also approve deputy under secretaries. Hundreds and even thousands of people have to come before the U.S. Senate for the constitutional requirement. The Constitution can be inconvenient to this administration--I realize that--but again, article II, section 2 says you must seek the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate.

How about the energy czar? The energy czar is a member of some wacko socialist group who believes the way to deal with global warming is for large industrial countries--i.e., the United States of America, and this would be non-czarist America--to shrink their economies in order to offset their emissions. That's the belief of the group that the energy czar belongs to. Wouldn't it be interesting to talk to the energy czar and ask her why she thinks this is a good group to be a member of? What would the socialist group have to offer to the United States of America at this point?

Perhaps the Senate would like to talk to the stimulus accountability czar.

I thank the gentleman.

The word ``accountability'' attracts my attention because the stimulus accountability czar spent $18 million designing a Web page. A show of hands of how many of you want some of that action. Eighteen million dollars to design a Web page? Talk about stimulating the economy. Boy, that was one way to spend our money. Again, the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate, article II, section 2, may have avoided that type of expenditure.

What do these people get paid, Mr. Speaker? $172,000 a year. Thirty- three people times $172,000--not to mention the myriad of staffs and entourages that we important people in Washington, D.C., have to go everywhere with. You never see somebody just walking in by him or herself. You always see the entourage that tells the whole world ``I am important.'' Therefore, I get back to the constitutional question:

If you are important, and if you have to have this big staff that costs the taxpayers millions of dollars, why not comply with the U.S. Constitution's article II, section 2: advice and consent of the U.S. Senate?

Madam Speaker, czarist Russia, 18 czars over a 300-year period of time. Czarist Obama Nation, America, 33 czars in 7 months, 33 czars who are running policy from Guantanamo Bay, to energy, to a $790 billion stimulus package, to a myriad of other things and yet none of them have gone before the United States Senate for confirmation even though article II, section 2 of the Constitution says that the President should seek consent and advice from the U.S. Senate before appointing important policy people to his Cabinet.

Now, we do appoint and have the Senate confirm sub-Cabinet members, deputy Cabinet members, a myriad of judges--indeed hundreds if not thousands of people--but 33 people at a salary of $172,000 each are running a parallel government without consent and approval. We need to stop this.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 3082, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010.

Request information: Representative Jack Kingston

Madam Speaker, I submit the following:

City of Kingsland, Kingsland, GA

Requesting Member: Congressman Jack Kingston

Bill Number: H.R. 2996, FY2010 Interior and Environment Appropriations

Account: EPA-STAG

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Kingsland, GA

Address of Requesting Entity: 107 South Lee Street P.O. Box 250 Kingsland, GA 31548

Description of Request: expand water and sewer infrastructure for the purposes of a new affordable housing development. Project would spur economic development in an underserved area.

Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District, Atlanta, GA

Requesting Member: Congressman Jack Kingston

Bill Number: H.R. 2996, FY2010 Interior and Environment Appropriations Account: EPA-STAG

Proposed Recipient: Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District

Address of Recipient: 40 Courtland Street, NE Atlanta, Georgia 30303-

Description of Request: funding received would be used to help local governments meet water resource plan requirements and be used for various stages of design and construction for several water projects including watershed management, wastewater treatment and water conservation.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am, in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard on the point of order.

I thank my colleague from Connecticut for the opportunity to speak on this. And I want to

talk to the Members of the House on why this motion to recommit is important to all of us.

We are on the verge of voting on a $123.8 billion bill which represents a 14 percent increase over last year's spending level in the backdrop of a nation that has an $11 trillion national debt.

Mr. Speaker, this administration has spent nearly $2 trillion in deficit spending. Now, what this motion to recommit does is says that we were not allowed to vote on 90 different amendments offered by Democrats and Republicans, representing nearly 650,000 people each. These amendments, had we had the opportunity to vote on them, would have improved the bill. One of them, for example, was a 1 percent savings----

Mr. Speaker, the motion does not change existing law; therefore, the gentlewoman's point of order is invalid.

Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

I am in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California.

The gentleman from California is correct. The people from California want water, not welfare.

I withdraw the motion.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the House Republican standards on congressionally directed funding, I am submitting the following information regarding funding included in H.R. 2997, the House Agriculture Appropriations bill of 2010.

Requesting Member: Congressman Jack Kingston

Bill Number: H.R. 2997

Account: CSREES, Special Grants

Legal Name of Recipient: University of Georgia College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences

Address of Recipient: 101 Conner Hall, Athens, GA 30602

Description of Request: Funding in the amount of $1,000,000 will be used to advance farm energy efficiencies by coupling advanced information, communication and control technologies with improved plant materials, byproduct use and energy capture conversion techniques.

Requesting Member: Congressman Jack Kingston

Bill Number: H.R. 2997

Account: National Resources Conservation Service, Conservation Operations

Legal Name of Recipient: Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission

Address of Recipient: 4310 Lexington Rd, Athens, GA 30603

Description of Request: Funding in the amount of $2,423,000 will help farmers address existing and emerging water supply issues with on-farm water storage.

Requesting Member: Congressman Jack Kingston

Bill Number: H.R. 2997

Account: CSREES, Special Grants

Legal Name of Recipient: University of Georgia College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences

Address of Recipient: 101 Conner Hall, Athens, GA 30602

Description of Request: Funding in the amount of $209,000 will allow for the development of new cultivars which combined with pre- and post- harvest management practices will increase production efficiency and improve quality of fruit delivered to consumers.

Requesting Member: Congressman Jack Kingston

Bill Number: H.R. 2997

Account: CSREES, Special Grants

Legal Name of Recipient: University of Georgia College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences

Address of Recipient: 101 Conner Hall, Athens, GA 30602

Description of Request: Funding in the amount of $346,000 will provide for the development of Web-based systems and in-field practices to provide water conservation alternatives that are distinct, direct and economical.

Requesting Member: Congressman Jack Kingston

Bill Number: H.R. 2997

Account: ARS, Salaries and Expenses

Legal Name of Recipient: ARS National Peanut Research Lab, Dawson, GA

Address of Recipient: 1011 Forrester Drive SE, Dawson, GA 39842

Description of Request: Funding in the amount of $1,200,000 will be used to produce the best management practices that will lead to water conservation.

Requesting Member: Congressman Jack Kingston

Bill Number: H.R. 2997

Account: CSREES, Special Grants

Legal Name of Recipient: University of Georgia College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences

Address of Recipient: 101 Conner Hall, Athens, GA 30602

Description of Request: Funding in the amount of $178,000 will be used to evaluate new disease management tactics for control of Phytopthora blight. No treatments or combination of measures exist to effectively suppress Phytopthora losses which often devastate the production of vegetable crops.

You know, we have all heard about czarist Russia. Over a 300-year period of time, Russia had 18 czars. Now, America has had czars, too--Ronald Reagan had one, George Bush had one, Bill Clinton had three, George W. Bush had four. This Presidency has 27--and maybe even as high as 33, nobody even knows--czars for all kinds of things like compensation, regulatory reform, terrorism, Guantanamo Bay, automobiles.

And who are these people? Well, we don't know, because even though the Constitution calls for the U.S. Senate to approve powerful people in powerful positions--and, indeed, they vote on hundreds of appointees--the czars go around this process. Now, they get paid $172,000 each and they all have staffs. We are spending millions of dollars on people who have not been vetted by the U.S. Senate. We do not know who they are or what they are doing.

Why won't the President use transparency and have these people come before the Senate and talk to them? Why are they so smart, and why do you have to have duplication of already existing Cabinet jobs?

I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina. I'm sorry for throwing you off a minute ago. I certainly appreciate the time.

I speak against this rule, Mr. Speaker, simply because it's a closed rule. You know, we come here, 435 Members representing 300 million people all across the United States of America with different ideas, and we are about to vote on a $123.8 billion bill in which these 435 Members of Congress have different ideas of how to change it.

Now, you know the expression, you're dressed up with no place to go. That's what it's like being on the Appropriations Committee. Maybe even rehearsing for a dance, and when you get to the dance, you find out you're not even allowed to dance. Well, that's what happens.

Ms. DeLauro and I worked very closely over the last several months-- and, indeed, over the last several years--working on agriculture issues. We have some sincere agreements, sincere disagreements, but we always have a dialogue going.

But now here, as we are in maybe not the home stretch, but at least the halfway point, we find out that the minority Members really can't participate today except for in a very narrowly focused gag rule. We submitted 90 amendments--we, Democrats and Republicans--in an effort to improve this bill, and of those, I believe 12 have been agreed upon. And of those, four are noncontroversial and five of them are a little bit superficial, if not routine.

I am just so disappointed in the fact that we can't get back to regular order. We have quoted David Obey, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, many times on the House floor and his words to the effect that when he was in the minority, how disappointed he was.

And he pointed out that when we lose the rights of the minority, we lose the right to be called the greatest deliberative body left in the world.

We had a good debate in the Rules Committee, and I thank my friend, Mr. McGovern, for facilitating that debate last night. And I don't believe that the Rules Committee made the final decision. I think the final decision was made down the hall by some staffers. I just believe that this really tightlipped, ironclad straitjacket on debate is bad for the system, as Mr. Obey lamented in 2006.

You know, there is a great line from ``Fiddler on the Roof.'' The star of it, I think his name is Tevye--I'm not sure, but I know these are the words. And he said in the song, ``If I Were a Rich Man,'' ``Lord who made the lion and the lamb, you decreed I should be what I am. Would it spoil some vast eternal plan, if I were a wealthy man?''

And so my question to my friends on the Rules Committee is, would it really spoil some vast eternal plan if you had an open rule? And you know the answer is certainly not. And you know that when we were in charge for 12 years, we had open rules--7 out of 12 years we had open rules on every single appropriations bill except for Legislative Branch. And as respects the Ag bill, we only had 1 year that we had a modified closed rule, and that was after 16 hours of debate.

So what is the vast eternal plan that we would spoil if we were allowed, in a representative democracy, an open rule? What would really happen? Is it that the philosophies of the majority are so fragile that they are like a card house, that if a Republican sneezed in the form of an amendment the whole thing would tumble down and the Pelosi empire would come crashing to the floor and be exposed for some bad and evil thing? I don't believe that's the case.

I think, frankly, that this body would do well with open rules and more debates. And I think it would foster a spirit of bipartisanship, because I think what we would find out is what most legislative bodies find out in State legislatures, that you've got good ideas from Republicans and good ideas from Democrats.

I thank the gentlewoman.

If you think about it, Mr. Speaker, some of the good ideas of Democrats melding--cross-pollination now--with good ideas of Republicans and good ideas of Independents, I think that would be a very healthy thing. And then this bill would go out of this Chamber to the other body, which we know has no good ideas whatsoever--just joking there. A little levity on the House floor is okay.

The point is we could get together as Democrats and Republicans on the House floor and then go debate the Senate, and maybe our ideas would prevail. And those ideas wouldn't necessarily be branded as Democrat or Republican, but they would be branded as American ideas, and they would be of a representative democracy.

So I hope we will vote this rule down and send it back to the Rules Committee, and then we will challenge that vast eternal plan--maybe not the one of the Democrat Party, but maybe the one of our forefathers-- that envisioned open debate in an open society as an underpinning of democracy.

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 continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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.

Will the gentlelady yield?

I just wanted to say on behalf of the minority members I had planned to oppose this amendment and do believe that this research can be very helpful and know that many of the earmarks that have been in this bill have increased food safety and increased food supply and created jobs along the way and reduced food costs.

And so there are a lot of things that do kind of catch the eye that sometimes there is more to it than you can get out in a quick debate on it. But I do plan to oppose this, and wanted the chairwoman to know that.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

I thank the gentleman for bringing this amendment to the floor. As one who is very involved in this earmark, I now have the opportunity to discuss it in detail. This is a program that works on future food production and technology by decreasing the cost of production and looking at ways to have some fuel independence. But what I wanted to emphasize to the gentleman, as he doesn't seem to have a problem with the merit of the project as much as the process of directing it to the University of Georgia, and I want to point out that the University of Georgia is a land grant university with one of the oldest agricultural colleges in the country. And they do compete for competitive grants on a regular basis, and they do get competitive grants. When they have put skin in the game, Congress has, in fact, not just for the University of Georgia, but for a lot of universities, put some matching money in it.

Now, in this case, the money is really not matching as the college itself has already put in about $5 million. And they have been working on this over the years, but they have gotten $500,000 from private foundations in 2010 and 2011. They will get $800,000 from private foundations. And then they have State money, and then they have university money in it. So it is not something where the $1 million is a new start-up for a program that is not out there. It is something that they have been going after.

Here is something from the State of Georgia, the Agriculture Energy Innovation Center, which we call GEFA. It is a letter in support of it, and of course, we do have something from the university itself supporting that the goal is in line with what colleges of agriculture and land grant universities do. But that is why the money went to the University of Georgia, and the Tifton campus is where they do much of their agricultural research.

I would invite the gentleman to come down and visit sometime and let me explain why the good people of Arizona should fund something like that in the State of Georgia, because often it is, well, why should everybody in the country support something that is going to a particular State? But when the end product is something that will help the whole Nation, that is what happens.

It is precision agriculture. One of the problems we have right now down on the farm is that you've got a lot of groups who are saying, All right, you're causing too much pollution. You're overfertilizing. You're using too much energy.

So, what we have here is a land grant university addressing those very issues which will not be proprietary in their results. It will be something that is shared throughout the Nation for other farmers to say, Now, look, here is how you can do it using high technology, using precision agriculture, saving lots of money and utilize those techniques all over the country.

With that, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time is left?

I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

I thank the gentlewoman.

And I want to say to my friend, number one, I am working on a number of amendments that we have offered in the subcommittee and in the full committee. Some were accepted, some were not. I have one that we will be discussing in a few minutes, a $400 million reduction in the spending in this. And I have to say, it kills me to say this just about, but I have to hand it to the Democrats. In 2006, this bill had $865 million worth of earmarks. Today's bill has $219 million. And I know the gentleman will say that is still too many, but one of the things that is real important is that there has been a reduction in earmarks.

In 2008, this bill had 623 earmarks, now it has 321. And it is still too much, but one of the things we still hear often is the proverbial Defense Department's $500 hammer. Well, that is because there are so many problems in defense procurement. But it is the same in all branches of government. So I don't think that Congress should just blindly turn everything over to bureaucracies who are going to come up with competitive grant programs. I do think it is proper for Congress to have a role in congressionally directed spending. But I want to emphasize that of a $5 million project, the University of Georgia has come up with $4 million, so they have put their skin in the game.

With that, I will yield the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

With that, I will yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, for many years the funding level for broadband programs or Rural Loan Program was handled by the Rural Utility Service in the Department of Agriculture. That funding was about $400 million. With the stimulus package that we passed in February, $790 billion package, there was about $7 billion for broadband grants and loan programs.

Two and a half billion of that money went to the Department of Agriculture, and the rest went to a brand-new program which really did the same thing and duplicated what is done in the Department of Agriculture. It all should have gone there. But if you think about a program going from 400 million to about 7 billion, that's not a plus- up. That's winning the lottery.

Now, I can only focus on $2.5 trillion, and you can't even do that because that's already in the stimulus bill already passed into law, but we can't focus on the $400 million.

What this amendment does, and frankly if I could have offered a cleaner amendment, I would have just had a straight cut of the $400 million. But what this does, it is similar; it says you can't use the $400 million that is in this until we have used the $2.5 billion that has already been passed into law.

The reason why that is important is when the stimulus bill was passed, there was so much talk about we are going to use this money immediately, shovel-ready projects, jobs will be created. And as we know, that was when the unemployment level was 8 percent and now it is nearly 10 percent. It has not stopped the bleed and job loss. But the fact is that $2.5 billion is still sitting there, and yet we are coming along now and giving another $400 million.

What this amendment says is we can't use the $400 million until the $2.5 billion is paid down. I urge support of the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say to my friend, the chairwoman of the committee, that is a very eloquent argument for the use of a broadband loan program, but it has nothing to do with this amendment because the broadband loan program is not under trial here.

But let me explain it this way to the Members who are not on the committee. I love going to Ryan's, and they probably have Ryan's in Connecticut, but Ryan's is one of those all-you-can-eat buffets. You go through the line and there is fried chicken and there is fried fish, and fried catfish, probably imported, who knows? There are all kinds of vegetables and desserts. You go through and you fill your plate up, and then you are allowed for the $8 price to go back and get some more food.

Well, let's just think going through the line was the stimulus program, Mr. Chairman. We filled up our plates, and I often found myself as a father of four saying to my kids, you can't go get more food until you finish what is on your plate. It just makes sense. Go ahead and eat the four pieces of fried chicken that you got before you go and grab another one that you don't have and you don't need. That is all this amendment is. It is not a trial of broadband. Broadband is funded by $2.5 billion under the RUS in the USDA under existing law, period. So $2.5 billion.

And all I am saying to the oftentimes gluttonous government here in Washington, D.C., is, don't go back through the buffet line until you have consumed what you've got. And when you have emptied that plate, then you can go back and get that fifth piece of fried chicken in the form of $400 million for broadband loans. At that point I don't know who we will be loaning the money to because, as I said earlier, there is another $3.5 billion in another program in another department. But that, too, is a matter of law, and that is not under scrutiny either.

The only thing I am saying is what I have said to my four children over the years when we would go to the Ryan buffet: Don't get more food on your plate until you finish what you've got. I urge support of this.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to my friend to finish her sentence.

Let me say this, representing a very rural district, a district where you can't get cell phone coverage, and a lot of the wireless technology is in already, I support what is going on. I agree with the chairman; it would have been nice for all of the money to go into RUS and not the Department of Commerce because it was an existing infrastructure for making this loan program.

The only thing I am saying is you don't get the new money until you have spent the existing money.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and service of a truly great American, Aubrey Emmitt Fallin. Aubrey was a courageous veteran, a dedicated citizen, and a fiercely loyal friend and father.

Aubrey was a patriot by anybody's definition. He served as a marine during WWII, landing on Iwo Jima February 19, 1945. He demonstrated indestructible bravery and strength, enduring a grueling 24 hours in which 2,721 of his fellow patriots lost their lives. Within the following 36 days, over 7,000 American soldiers were killed in action. His presence during this historic struggle put him in one of the bloodiest battles in World history. If it were not for brave men like Aubrey the war would have been lost. Risking and overcoming much, Aubrey emerged from the war with deeply rooted pride, admiration, respect, and love for his America.

After his completion of service, Aubrey was not only a veteran, he was a veteran's veteran. Beyond his recollection and stories of this era he would also give lectures on how to apply yesterday's lessons to today and tomorrow. In peacetime, he was just as fierce of a freedom fighter as he was when bullets were flying all around him. Even as his health failed him, he kept a vigilant eye out for the best interest of America. He used his devotion to our great nation to spur and awaken that very same passion within every individual he knew.

Beyond the battlefield, Aubrey served on the front lines of his local political community through his active leadership. He was a member of Coffee County Board of Registrars, The American Legion and Veterans of Foreign War, past chairman of The Coffee County Republican Party, former president of Douglas Hobos & Shriner Clowns, a member of the Masons and Shriners, and a past president of the Exchange Club. He manifested his faithful love for our country through continuing to sacrifice his time and serve his fellow citizens. His unwavering service, vigilance, and outspoken nature secured freedom for all.

Aubrey was an unquestionably loyal friend. I never left Coffee County without at least one bag of peanut brittle. Enjoying a treat made by such patriotic and loving hands was an honor. We will miss Aubrey as a friend and companion, and we will always be appreciative of the freedom we enjoy because of his and others' sacrifice. His life undoubtedly impacted all who came in contact with him for the better. Aubrey has left a lasting legacy of compassion, strength, and service. May God bless his memory forever!

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise today in strong support for the community of Hinesville, Georgia, and Liberty County. I commend the area for their ardent support of our troops and the Army at Fort Stewart, which has continuously engaged in the challenging missions in the defense of our Nation around the globe.

November 2007, the Army announced that Fort Stewart would receive another brigade combat team using the findings of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Committee, along with Fort Bliss and Fort Carson. Since that time, the community installation and Congress have geared up and invested for that growth. Working with post leadership and the Pentagon, Congress appropriated funds for military construction projects such as barracks, buildings, and operation facilities at $154 million for FY 2008 and $352 million for FY09. Clearly the Army has invested greatly to maintain Fort Stewart's tradition as an award- winning installation of excellence.

At the urging of the Army staff and the military leadership on post, the Hinesville community stepped forward to be sure that the new troops would have adequate housing and public infrastructure. The Department of Defense also sent the Office of Economic Adjustment to assist the community to properly prepare for the arrival of the new brigade combat team. Investments were made for new schools, roads, infrastructure.

Banks made many loans to property developers who, in turn, purchased land and accelerated their efforts to provide homes and commercial properties to support the arrival of over 10,000 soldiers and family. However, the decision announced by the Army this June has brought all this economic activity to a halt. While some of this infrastructure will be used or absorbed in time, it is clear that without the arrival of the brigade combat team, the city has overbuilt and overinvested.

The economic hardship would not have occurred without the BRAC-based decision to bring additional troops and the Army's insistence that Hinesville get aggressively involved. The community support in Fort Stewart still has much to offer for the Army.

I stand here in support of the provisions within this bill that will help address the hardship incurred by the small rural communities that support Fort Stewart.

I thank the gentleman for his kind words of support for the patriotic and hardworking people in the communities surrounding Fort Stewart, and I appreciate the chairman's support to work with me through this year's National Defense Authorization Act to ensure that the Army and the local communities can continue to have strong partnerships in the support of the troops.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 in Title XXVI, Section 2601 (a) in the Guard and Reserve Forces Facilities Section.

Request information: Representative Jack Kingston, H.R. 2647, Department of Defense, Army National Guard Account

Recipient information: Georgia Army National Guard, Hunter Army Aviation Facility, Savannah GA

Description: The Georgia Army National Guard received an earmark in the amount of $8,967,000.

The current facility has exceeded its useful life with several irreparable leaks. The unit is devoting considerable time in overcoming these obstacles to meet its current requirements for training, planning and storage of weapons and information technology.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2847, the Commerce, Justice, Science & Other Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010:

Request information: Representative Jack Kingston