Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Steven and Julie Karber of Jefferson, Iowa, on being named the winners of the ``Gary Wergin Good Farm Neighbor Award.'' This award recognizes Iowa livestock farmers who dedicate themselves not only to their professions and their community, but also to caring for the environment.

The state of Iowa is celebrating the Karber's achievements, but I feel that we in the U.S. House of Representatives should also recognize and commend the valuable professional and social contributions of Iowa's livestock farmers. Steve and Julie raise sheep in the Jefferson area of my district, but Steve is also an M.D. with an active practice. When the Karbers aren't promoting the sheep industry or handling the day to day demands of being a physician, they are actively supporting the local 4-H and are involved in other community organizations.

I commend Steve and Julie for their many years of loyalty and service to Iowa and to our country. It is an immense honor to represent them in Congress, and I know they will continue to serve as role models of the values of community service in this Country.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate and congratulate Louise Johnson on the occasion of her 100th birthday on December 24th, 2009.

Louise was born in Esmund, South Dakota in 1909. While growing up in South Dakota, she met and married Lars Vierson Teigland, and the two moved to Iowa in 1939, happily raising two sons, Lowell and Owen, who later served in the U.S. Army. After Lars passed away she married Haakin Johnson, who she also spent many happy years with.

Louise has lived on and managed the family farm in Emmetsburg, Iowa for forty-four years until November of this year when she moved to Lakeside Nursing Home. She's enjoyed being a member of the Emmetsburg flower club, collecting dolls, making corn husk dolls and being passionate about politics.

There have been many changes that have occurred during the past one hundred years. Since Louise's birth we have revolutionized air travel and walked on the moon. We have invented the television and the Internet. We have fought in wars overseas, seen the rise and fall of Soviet communism and the birth of new democracies. Louise has also seen the leadership of eighteen United States Presidents and twenty-three Governors of Iowa. In her lifetime the population of the United States has more than tripled.

I congratulate Louise Johnson for reaching this milestone of a birthday. I am extremely honored to represent Louise in Congress and I wish her happiness and health in her future years.

I thank the gentleman from California for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I hear all of this talk about the past. If I remember a little bit of the past, recently, somebody ran on the idea of ``change you can believe in.''

Is this the kind of change that people were talking about, to continue the same type of efforts in the House here that are so bad as far as what was in the past?

I am very, very disturbed today that we bring a rule to the floor 5 months after this bill has passed the floor of the House and 3 months after it has passed the Senate. Now, today, almost 3 months into the new fiscal year, we finally bring the Transportation-HUD bill to the floor. Why? Why wait? This bill has been done for months and months.

The frustration, I think, that a lot of us have on both sides of the aisle is there is no reason that this bill should not have been completed other than for the fact that they wanted to use it as it is being used today, which is as a vehicle to carry other bills that maybe

could not stand on their own and because the work hasn't been done; but anyone who talks about some kind of delay tactic when you have an 80- vote margin in the House and a supermajority in the Senate is simply beyond having any kind of rational argument today.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you, a couple of days ago, I had a motion to instruct conferees--and this is why I think everyone should oppose this rule. I had a motion which said that we would have, as conferees on this bill, 72 hours to look at what is in those 2,500 pages which are being dumped on us today. We were given 30 minutes. When the bill was completed and we were in conference, we had gotten the opportunity for 30 minutes, which is after the House had voted to give us 72 hours to study what is in that bill. Also, the House voted, and a sizable majority said, that we should take this bill by itself rather than have these other five bills added onto it. Again, totally ignored. So here we are today with almost a $500 billion bill which we had 30 minutes to look at.

Just as one example of why it is important to have a chance to look at something like this, there was a provision airdropped that no one knew about. I asked about it in conference. No one knew the answer to it. It is one which is a huge safety issue on transportation.

Airdropped into this conference report just before our conference convened was a special exemption for the State of Vermont to have 98,000-pound trucks travel on interstate highways.

Now, maybe this is okay. Maybe it's fine. This is exactly why we should have time to look at it. I know there are a lot of States which would like to have their weights increased. Certainly, this is a safety issue in many parts of the country, so to have someone airdrop a provision of that importance into a bill like this is simply outrageous.

There was no debate. No one knew a thing about it. Even the people who were in charge of the bill could not explain the provision when I asked, What is this under that section? Why is this language in there as it is? It had absolutely no debate. No one knew what it was.

Please vote against this rule. Let's get a decent bill on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank Chairman Olver for his kind words and his leadership this year. The gentleman from Massachusetts truly is a gentleman. And I appreciate very much the work that he has done. He has very artfully negotiated a good conference report for the House. Those of you who know John Olver know that he puts a great deal of effort and thought into this bill and to the issues in the transportation and housing worlds. In fact, sometimes you feel like he has gone a little bit too far into the weeds, but his dedication is to be admired.

It is all the more unfortunate that we are here today under these circumstances. Instead of presenting a Transportation-HUD conference report, Chairman Olver is forced to carry five other bills with him, bills that should be considered on their own as conference reports.

The Transportation-HUD bill, like all appropriations bills, was considered under a closed rule in the name of expediency. The Transportation-HUD bill passed the floor of the House in July. The Senate even passed the bill. That was on September 17. The Senate, apparently the body that can't get their work done on time, managed to do it at that time under an open amendment process. They even actually got to offer amendments on the bill, which is something we didn't get to do here in the House.

Realistically, we could have and should have been able to bring the Transportation-HUD conference report to the floor by the end of the fiscal year. Instead, here we are today 3 months into the fiscal year, 3 months after the Senate passed its bill in an omnibus today.

The Transportation-HUD is not alone in this situation. The MilCon- Veterans bill was also considered and passed by both bodies. MilCon-VA should be a stand-alone conference report. Commerce, Justice, Science actually had a conference meeting noticed up, but that got yanked. The CJS should be a stand-alone bill. Instead, it also got stuck in this omnibus. Three other bills--the Foreign Operations bill, the Financial Services bill, and even the Labor-HHS bill, Mr. Obey's own bill-- weren't considered in the Senate and are buried in this package.

Members of this House should be aware you voted against this type of a package on Tuesday. The House voted to adopt a motion to instruct that said no extraneous matters may be added to the Transportation-HUD conference report. Instead, against the wishes of the House, we've added five bills to this conference report.

I regret very much that I am unable to support this bill. It's my first year on this bill and I have enjoyed, obviously, working with the chairman. The issues are interesting and our subcommittee members are really engaged and bring a variety of experiences to the table. However, the price tag on this bill is simply too high.

Mr. Lewis offered an amendment, very reasonable, to have the spending levels proposed by Congress at the 2010 level, everything but Defense and Veterans, at 2 percent over last year. We spent a lot of money last year, so a 2 percent increase over last year would really be quite generous.

However, when we finish the 2010 bills, the Democrats will have increased government spending by 85 percent, 85 percent over the last 2 years. You tell me one American family that has 85 percent more in 2009. I can tell you none of my constituents have an

additional 85 percent to spend this year. And they sure don't have the funds to pay for the tax increases that will be needed to pay for this or the debt that the other party is dumping on our taxpayers.

Another issue I think the Members need to be aware of in this package, despite our earlier efforts, the Justice Department has issued an opinion that the government will still give funds to ACORN. Let me say that again. We will still be funding ACORN under this bill and their existing contracts. Federal funds will still flow. I had an amendment in conference to substitute new language to get at this issue, as I think all of us were under the impression that ACORN was cut off for good. That's what we were told. However, the Justice Department has another view, and the agencies at least in the HUD area will still cut checks to ACORN.

I yield myself another 30 seconds.

I told the Rules Committee yesterday this is a bittersweet time. The THUD conference is completed, and that in itself is an accomplishment. There's a lot of good policy in the Transportation-HUD conference bill, but this package with all of the six bills piled together is about $390 billion and five appropriations bills too large.

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

Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), ranking member of the full committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is available on each side?

At this point, I would be proud to give 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the gentleman for recognizing the fact that we were fiscally responsible before and that to catch up in 2 years by spending 85 percent more, by increasing spending by 85 percent, is truly more than catching up, I would say.

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).

At this time, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger).

Mr. Speaker, just one comment. I think it's interesting to note the gentleman talked about that we are finally getting the Military Construction bill done, VA funding. The last two bills that we are funding are Defense, which will be 80 days out from the start of the new fiscal year, the Military Construction-VA bill.

But if you remember back with the schedule, the very first bill that was passed and signed into law was to fund Congress itself. We took care of ourselves here first and the military was the very, very last. I think that is very unfortunate.

I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 1 minute to the minority leader of the House, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

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

I don't know if the gentleman has more speakers, but I'm planning on closing. I just want to thank the staff, on both sides. Our subcommittee does an outstanding job working together, and I'm just very, very proud of the work that they've done and the kind of commitment they've shown, and just want to say thank you for the professionalism that they have exhibited throughout this whole process.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to oppose this for various reasons. Number one, the fact that this $450 billion bill is a 14 percent increase in spending over last year. At a time when people are hurting, we cannot afford this kind of additional debt that's being put on the taxpayers, on the families at home. Realizing that in the last 2 years, discretionary spending in this House of Representatives has increased now, 85 percent; 85 percent more money, discretionary money, being spent today than just 2 years ago. Does anybody at home have 85 percent more money today than what they had 2 years ago? Is it responsible in any way, shape or form to have that kind of an increase?

The gentleman from Massachusetts--and I appreciate his professionalism--made the case, basically, for me before. We held down spending previously. And this explosion that we've seen just throughout the budget is simply wrong. We cannot sustain it, and it is about the next generations. I've got four grandchildren. They're going to pay this bill, and their children are going to pay this bill, and it simply is not fair. It's generational theft, and we've got to finally hold the line as far as spending in this Congress and find some kind of sanity around here.

With that, again, I would hope that everyone would vote ``no.'' We could get some reality. We could separate these bills, have them done correctly and in a responsible way. And just one other thing in closing. I want to, again,

thank Chairman Olver for being a very good friend, his professionalism, and someone that I really admire.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, this is a very basic motion to instruct on what could be a very complicated bill. This motion simply instructs the conferees to restrain from adding any extraneous materials--like other appropriation bills and any other issues outside the provisions included in either the House- or Senate-passed Transportation HUD bill, or THUD bill. This motion also provides any conference report will be available for no less than 72 hours before the conference report will be brought up for final passage in the House.

Madam Speaker, the THUD bill, like every appropriations bill this year, was slammed through the House in July under an unprecedented closed and restrictive rule, all in the name of completing these bills in ``regular order.''

The Senate, even with all of its scheduling issues, managed to pass a regular THUD bill in an open process with amendments--and I might add by September 17.

This THUD bill should have been considered and passed by early October at the latest. Instead, here we are now in December.

According to the plan as presented to me, Chairman Obey is planning on lumping five other bills with the THUD bill to create an omnibus. Three of those bills--Financial Services, Foreign Operations, and the Labor H bills--weren't even considered on the Senate floor. Two of the other bills--the Military Construction-VA and the Commerce, Justice, Science bills--have passed both the House and the Senate, and there is no reason these bills shouldn't have their own free-standing conferences. In fact, the Commerce, Justice, Science bill was supposed to go to conference on November 17, but that conference got yanked due to some cold feet on the part of the majority at the prospect of having their Members have to vote on Guantanamo Bay policy.

By voting for this motion to instruct, you are voting for regular order process on these bills. We should be able to vote on veterans issues separate from the D.C. issues, the foreign aid issues, and all of the other issues we don't want stacked together. There are other things like railroad issues, immigration issues. They should all be done separately.

Further, this motion to instruct provides that the House will make available the full text of the conference report to the conferees at least 72 hours prior to consideration. There are billions of dollars at stake and a lot of policy to digest. It's our responsibility that we, as elected Representatives representing our districts, know what we're voting on. Further, I believe this motion is not inconsistent with Speaker Pelosi's policy.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the simple motion to instruct.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, while I appreciate the chairman reciting history, also you should look at fiscal year 2006 when every bill was passed individually, signed into law in regular order with an open, free process. And so I think that is a model that we should all be looking for, and hopefully that would be the case. And there's no reason to put all of these bills together. And certainly there's no reason that we shouldn't have enough time to look at--it's about a half a trillion dollars of spending--to have 72 hours to finally look at the bill.

Again, Madam Speaker, there really is no controversy here. This is a simple motion to instruct, directing the committee to, number one, keep the THUD bill clean and within its scope of the conference, and, number two, to allow the conference agreement to be available to conferees 72 hours in advance of final passage.

I ask for a ``yes'' vote.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I want to express my appreciation to the chairman for his patience. This has been a difficult process. As he mentioned, we start and stop, start and stop and back and forth; but it has been a real pleasure for me in my first year on this subcommittee to work with the chairman. And while we don't always agree on everything, we always have a very, very open dialogue. And I appreciate that very much.

Again, Madam Speaker, this really is very simple. With all the money that we are spending in this bill that we are pulling together a bunch of extraneous bills that have nothing to do with Transportation and HUD, the idea that we should just limit the conference to this bill, there are other avenues for doing the other bills. And certainly when you are spending this much money, there is no doubt that people should have a chance, at least 72 hours, to look at this bill in advance of passage.

I would ask for a ``yes'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, everyone agrees that health care costs too much in this country, but we can fix the problem without a trillion- dollar government takeover of health care. The bill before us now takes us in the wrong direction. It slashes Medicare and pins small businesses with job-killing taxes and mandates, at a time when our economy is struggling and unemployment is over 10 percent.

More federal controls on the content of insurance policies have nothing to do with covering the uninsured and will increase costs for most families rather than decrease them. If you have coverage through an employer, your premiums will go up. If you have an individual policy, you will have to switch to a federal exchange plan in 2013 or face a fine or, possibly, jail time for not having federally qualifying coverage that you may not be able to afford. Younger people in particular could see their premiums increase by more than 70 percent.

Instead of taking the approach we are taking today, we should implement common-sense reforms that focus on covering the uninsured and lowering health care costs. We must ensure those with pre-existing conditions get quality coverage. We can lower costs by requiring insurance companies to compete nationwide, and we can clamp down on frivolous malpractice lawsuits. Most of the uninsured work for small businesses that cannot afford health insurance for their employees, and we should allow small businesses to pool together for lower premiums. Such reforms have bipartisan support and could be enacted immediately to provide relief for millions of Americans struggling with health insurance costs.

On another note, this bill contains no guarantee that Iowa's Medicare reimbursement rates--which are among the lowest in the country--will see any sort of increase. At the same time, this bill specifically increases Medicare payments in 14 counties in California, the home state of Rep. Henry Waxman, one of this bill's main authors. This may be viewed as reform by some, but it is certainly uneven reform for those counties in our districts that do not benefit from such increases.

Throughout the summer and early fall, more than 12,400 residents of Iowa's 4th Congressional District responded to my health care survey. A majority were unsatisfied with the state of health care in America, and rightly so. More than 70 percent of respondents ranked cost as the most pressing concern regarding health care in the United States, followed by access at 14.6 percent and quality at 8.4 percent. However, 86 percent described the quality of their personal health care as either ``excellent'' or ``good'' and they do not want to be forced to give up coverage they are satisfied with. Some 65 percent said the government should play ``no role'' or a ``minor role'' in determining health insurance options for Americans. My constituents support common sense solutions. Approximately 64 percent support doing away with exclusions for preexisting conditions, 75 percent thought people should be allowed to purchase health insurance across state lines, and 69 percent support small business health plans.

To sum it all up, this bill is clearly not what is advertised by its supporters and it is not what my constituents want. We need to go back to the drawing board and produce a bill with common-sense solutions that the vast majority of Americans support.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Sarah Rose Frana from Ridgeway, Iowa for her commitment and enthusiasm as a foreign language student at Luther College in Decorah, Iowa.

Sarah has been selected for a United States Department of State Critical Language Scholarship to study the Arabic language in Amman, Jordan. This Department of State program is an important component of the federal government's coordinated effort to expand the number of Americans learning foreign languages.

I consider it a great honor to represent Sarah Rose Frana in the United States Congress, and I know that my colleagues join me in congratulating her on earning this special scholarship. I wish Sarah great success in the program, her travel and in her future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Kathryn Wolt from Ames, Iowa for her commitment and enthusiasm as a foreign language student at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana.

Kathryn has been selected for a United States Department of State Critical Language Scholarship to study the Russian language in Astrakhan, Russia. This Department of State program is an important component of the federal government's coordinated effort to expand the number of Americans learning foreign languages.

I consider it a great honor to represent Kathryn Wolt in the United States Congress, and I know that my colleagues join me in congratulating her on earning this special scholarship. I wish Kathryn great success in the program, her travel and in her future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, last evening, I did a telephone town hall meeting, and I talked to thousands of my constituents. We had a poll. We asked the question:

Do you support the health care reform bill that was just introduced by Speaker Nancy Pelosi?

The results were overwhelming: 76 percent of the people responded ``no.'' The reason is that what people are concerned about are the costs in health care today, and the people at home understand the fact that this is only going to raise their costs. The government-run plan, the takeover plan of our health insurance, actually is going to cost more than what private insurance costs today.

This isn't what was advertised. This isn't what people want. They don't want the government coming in, taking over their health insurance, changing their policies for them without their permission, cutting benefits to people on Medicare--people who need those benefits desperately. They're going to take those benefits away. This is not what the people wanted, and we're going to vote this bill down.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the House Republican standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information.

Bill Number: H.R. 3183--Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010.

Project Name: Winnebago River, Mason City, Ia.

Amount Provided: Not Stipulated

Account: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--Section 205

Recipient: Rock Island Illinois Corps Office/Mason City, Iowa

Recipient's Street Address: Clock Tower Bldg., Rodman Ave, Rock Island, IL 61201

Description: Continuation of authorized activities.

This project is related to mitigating recurring flood problems in Iowa, and provides for continuation of flood control strategies being undertaken by the Corps.

Mr. Speaker, as millions go without health insurance and costs skyrocket, I strongly believe we need commonsense reforms so that all American families can have access to affordable health coverage.

But the plan should not be financed by raiding the Medicare program and shifting costs onto the backs of our seniors. Seniors are being asked to shoulder the burden while getting virtually none of the benefits.

H.R. 3200 cuts Medicare by a total of $500 billion over the next 10 years. This includes cuts to hospitals, nursing homes, life-saving imaging services, and home health care services. The bill cuts payments to Medicare Advantage plans by $172 billion, which, according to the CBO, will force more than 3 million seniors out of plans that could no longer operate.

More than 61,000 Iowa seniors and nearly 20 percent of Medicare beneficiaries nationwide are enrolled in that type of plan, which lowers premium costs by rolling health and drug coverage into one plan and negotiating with the health care providers.

I thank the gentleman from Idaho, and I thank the Speaker for the recognition.

Mr. Speaker, the Senate included a one-sentence provision in the 2008 omnibus spending bill requiring the EPA

to develop and publish a rule that mandates the reporting of greenhouse gas emissions for all sectors of the U.S. economy. That one sentence reads, ``Of the funds provided in the Environmental Programs and Management Account, not less than $3,500,000 shall be provided for activities to develop and publish a draft rule not later than 9 months after the date of enactment of this act, and a final rule not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this act, to require mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions above appropriate thresholds in all sectors of the economy of the United States.''

Mr. Speaker, this one sentence, incidentally, I will say--and I will say again later--never had a hearing. It was snuck in in this bill. That one sentence resulted in 1,302 pages, 42 volumes of regulations, and I hold here the 1,300 pages. The preamble of this regulation is 500 pages long. This is what this is, another 500 pages. So we've got 1,800 pages, and the Regulatory Impact Analysis of more than 200 pages. Mr. Speaker, here is another 200 pages. So, in total, this one sentence that was snuck in this bill has resulted in over 2,000 pages of new regulations for our country at a time that we're in a recession and people are hurting out there. This is the cost of more government.

The proposed rule generated about 17,000 comments. According to the EPA, this rule will cost employers $115 million for the first year, and estimates about $70 million each year after that just to comply with the new 2,000 pages here. Mr. Speaker, as a former small business owner and farmer, I would suggest these numbers are exceedingly low. And there is no estimate as to how much has already been spent by businesses trying to figure out whether or not they fall under the regulation, and if they do, how they're going to follow these new rules.

Congress tucked this sentence into an appropriations bill, again, without holding a single hearing. Let me reemphasize, not a single hearing goes into these 2,000 pages of regulations that are now being put on top of our economy. Consequently, the language provided no limitation or guidelines for the EPA and gave the agency unlimited authority to draft the new rule.

The EPA did its job; 1,300 pages in regulations are a testament to the Congress using the Appropriations Committee to shortcut the authorizing committee process.

The language we are debating today impacts the livestock industry. Within these 1,300 pages, the regulation requires a reporting of greenhouse gases from animal agriculture, which, on the surface, seems harmless enough. However, I want to stress that this regulation has a cost and, more importantly, it will do nothing to improve the environmental health of rural America. It doesn't make manure lagoons smell any better. It doesn't protect water wells or native species. It doesn't do one thing to improve the standard of living in rural Iowa or any part of this country. It has, however, improved the standard of living of people in metropolitan Washington, D.C., because this one sentence has kept a bunch of bureaucrats at EPA busy for the last year and a half.

Farmers work very hard day to day to try to preserve their environment, from learning how to keep their topsoil from washing away, to improving the quality of our water, to eliminating odor and turning waste products into energy. The health of the environment is critically important to the success of a farming operation.

American farmers have done a great job in finding ways to protect the environment without sacrificing their families' farms' incomes; but at a time when our Nation's farmers are facing some of the most difficult economic times in the last decade, we are introducing a new and costly Federal mandate. This regulation will generate additional input costs for an industry that can ill afford it.

Dairy has lost about $12 billion in milk receipts from 2008-2009, about a 33 percent loss; pork, a loss of about $2 billion, or 10 percent in receipts for hogs, and the industry is expected to lose another $800 million this year; cattle, a loss of about $5 billion, or 10 percent of its receipts; and poultry producers are going bankrupt.

If you're in livestock today, you are losing money. The EPA estimates the cost of reporting will be $900 per facility. However, one instrument used to measure methane can cost about $15,000, and it requires trained personnel to maintain, which adds further costs. So these farmers are going to have to hire an expert to sit there and monitor the machines. To me, that adds up to a little more than $900 per facility.

To add further costs to production is simply foolish and irresponsible on the part of this Congress. This language should never have been added to a spending bill. That's why we have an authorizing committee and why Members representing agriculture are concerned about this climate change legislation.

You think about it. One sentence tucked into an appropriations bill generated 1,300 pages of regulations, 500 pages of preamble and 200 pages of regulatory impact analysis, and it regulates all sectors of the economy, agriculture just being a small slice.

We have cap-and-trade bills that have thousands of pages of legislative language alone that Members of Congress want signed into law. This Congress intends to give the EPA a huge increase in spending this year, and I guess they're going to need it. Why? Because the EPA is going to have to hire a heck of a lot of new people to write those regulations, and regulations with equations like these have real costs to our economy.

Let me just show you what this regulation looks like. This is true. This is why farmers love Washington--when you have a paragraph that puts one of the formulas in these regulations that farmers have to comply with. Let me just read.

It says, ``For all manure management system components listed in 98.360(b), except digesters, estimate the annual CH4 emissions and sum for all the components to obtain total emissions from the manure management system for all animal types using equation JJ-1.''

Well, this is equation JJ-1. You figure it out. We're going to have to have a bunch of mathematicians on the farm along with the EPA, apparently.

The regulation, as written, is onerous. The cost and scope is in serious question, and agriculture cannot afford another Federal mandate on this economy. Manure management is a serious issue. I know. I grew up and I live in Iowa, but this rule does nothing--and I emphasize again nothing--to improve the way farmers manage their manure.

Ladies and gentlemen, we stand up here every day, and we talk about the economic problems outside the beltway and about how much we want to work to provide assistance. When will it dawn on us that here in Washington we are part of that problem? Washington mandates costs on a daily basis, whether on farmers who feed us or on our constituents in low-income areas who have to pay more of their hard-earned dollars each month to cover the costs of our well-intentioned handiwork. We need to think about the impacts--$200 here, $1,000 here, $200 million over there. Pretty soon, our employers are struggling to keep up with the government-generated cost-of-living increases.

I ask my colleagues to please support this motion to instruct. It is absolutely critical, not only in agriculture but for our constituents back home.

I thank the gentleman.

I don't know how you can say you have 99 percent when the amendment is eliminated. The fact of the matter is that we are going to be spending millions of dollars whether you are large producers or small producers to figure out who qualifies under this.

That's one of the major problems here is that nobody knows for sure who it is and who it isn't. You are going to have to spend as a large producer, small producer, whatever, a whole bunch of money to figure out whether or not you actually qualify.

The fact of the matter is, any of these costs are going to be passed down to the consumers. Now, I know, maybe another 30, 40 bucks a week out of a grocery bill isn't much for folks around here. But I tell you what, there are folks hurting at home, and that's a lot of money.

The idea that somehow this isn't going to affect the price of food, that it isn't going to affect the cost of agriculture; and to do nothing, just have no improvement as far as the environment, no improvement as far as waste management, as far as air emissions, it will do nothing except add cost to the end consumer. I'm sorry, but my producers out there know what this is going to cost them, each and every one of them, because they're going to have to go through a whole process to figure out what they can do and cannot do; it's going to add cost, and we're going to end up with the families today paying the bill at the grocery store because of onerous regulations exactly like this.

I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for the time.

I have to rise today in strong opposition to this rule, and unfortunately and reluctantly in opposition to the conference report itself. The main reason, this rule is simply outrageous. We've had a long debate for years around here about air-dropping items in conference. What happens is that you have a bill that comes out of the House that does not have a provision in it, a bill that comes out of the Senate that does not have the provision in it, and then policies and new laws are dropped in in conference with no debate, no discussion, nothing passed off the floor of either body but just come from afar, air-dropped at conference time.

In this bill, there are at least five new programs that were air- dropped in conference costing $150 million. That's in this bill. And it certainly is way beyond the scope of the Rules Committee to approve this. Maybe there was some debate in the Rules Committee sometime that they agreed to it, but certainly there is no other Member that knows what these provisions are for.

Again, to spend $150 million, five new mandatory programs in this bill that no one has debated in either body is simply outrageous.

Mr. Speaker, I also today have to oppose the conference report reluctantly. There are things in this conference report that I support, such as the research for agriculture, child nutrition, aid to farmers, all of these things. However, this is not, in my opinion, a responsible bill.

Today we are going to vote on an agriculture appropriations package that

exceeds $121 billion. It contains huge increases in spending over last year's levels. Mandatory appropriations in this bill total $97.8 billion. That is $10 billion more than last year. And nearly two-thirds of this increase is for domestic nutrition programs. They may be very, very worthwhile and needed. That's a $6.2 billion increase, 9 percent over last year's level. However, neither the House nor the Senate Appropriations Committee ever held a hearing on these items, where you're spending an additional $6.2 billion, with the proper agency to actually discuss the need whether or not this spending is justified.

Farm commodity programs receive a $2.8 billion increase. That's 25 percent over last year. And again Congress, the committee had no hearings to justify that kind of kind of an increase.

I thank the gentlelady.

Federal crop insurance that I very much support receives about $900 million more than last year. That's a 14 percent increase, and yet never a hearing, no one from the agency that oversees crop insurance came to justify that kind of an increase.

Discretionary appropriations in the bill total $23.3 billion, that's $2.7 billion more than fiscal year 2009, a 13 percent increase. This is $325 million more than the President requested, and $404 million more than was passed in the House bill. The largest discretionary increases are for nutritional assistance, including a $421 million increase for that. That's 6 over percent over last year. But did Congress have a hearing on it? No.

The agreement contains a $590 million increase for foreign food assistance. That is a 39 percent increase. Again, neither the House nor the Senate held any hearings to discuss such an enormous spending increase.

This spending bill was written with virtually no congressional oversight. It also almost seems that the motto of the Appropriations Committee today should be ``Spending Your Tax Dollars With No Questions Asked.''

The American taxpayers deserve a heck of a lot better than this. Accountability matters for both the administration and this Congress. And at the very least, the Congress should be asking the tough questions about these budget requests, these spending increases, and we deserve to get answers about how these huge government programs are administered. To date, we haven't had hearings.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule because of the air- dropped items and the spending increases and support accountability and responsibility in this Congress. Unfortunately, I ask them to vote against the conference report.

I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for yielding me this time for an opportunity to remember a great American, a great Iowan, Dr. Norman Borlaug, and I am very pleased that the whole Iowa delegation has come together and written a letter to the Iowa State legislature and the Governor to ask that a statue of Dr. Borlaug be placed, representing Iowa, right here in our Capitol. I appreciate the cooperation of everyone.

Dr. Borlaug devoted his life to a historic campaign to save the lives of the world's neediest people using agricultural science for the feeding of those individuals. His innovative leadership in plant breeding and agricultural production gave birth to the Green Revolution, and he was credited with saving over a billion--that's with a ``B''--a billion lives from starvation and the generations onward. It will be several billion as time goes on.

I think it's interesting that even in his final days at the age of 95, Dr. Borlaug pressed on with his mission to work for the good of all mankind. His accomplishments and his memory will live on continuing to improve the lives of countless people around the world for generations to come.

It was a great honor for me personally to call Dr. Borlaug a friend. I admired him for his vision and all of his accomplishments, but his modesty was every bit as extraordinary. He once described his work as ``a temporary success in man's war against hunger and deprivation.'' Dr. Norman Borlaug proved that one person can save a billion lives with a powerful vision and a pair of hardworking hands. He will very, very much be missed.

I think a very fitting thing that happened here with Congress was to give Dr. Borlaug the Congressional Gold Medal. I was very proud to have worked together with my colleagues from Iowa to make that achievement. And I think the remembering of his last words is so fitting for the life of achievement that he had and how he believed in basic science and having it actually relate to production agriculture. He was visiting with another scientist that he had taught on his deathbed. The scientist was telling about a new technology he had. Norman Borlaug, if I may try to quote what he said, he said, ``Get it to the farmers. Get it to the people who can actually make use of this technology to feed more people to make it actually utilized in agriculture today for the feeding to stamp out this horrible thing we call starvation around the world.''

Once again, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for this chance and this opportunity to recognize once again a great American, Dr. Norman Borlaug.

Madam Speaker, here we are on the Floor of the House again, with less than a week to go before the end of the fiscal year, and the majority is not prepared to send a single, finalized appropriation bill to the President for signature. Where is the change that was promised?

In addition to the legislative bill before us today, we have four significant funding bills that have passed both the House and Senate, and are ready to go to conference or whatever we call conferences these days: Agriculture, Energy and Water, Homeland Security and Transportation/HUD. These are bills that contain important funding for all of our districts, including monies for new and important initiatives that might help the economy.

Over the course of this FY-2010 funding cycle, the majority has run a process that has prevented spending bills from being perfected through the amendment process, primarily to avoid tough votes.

That stunted process has allowed the funding bills to be rammed through the House. Yet, with closed Rules, an 80-seat majority in the House and a 20-seat majority in the other Body, the congressional leadership still cannot manage to move the appropriation bills. As my children used to say, ``what's wrong with this picture?''

Ladies and gentlemen, I suggest that what is wrong with this picture is a continuation of what has been going on for the last several months and it is not about the last administration.

Right now, we are: sitting on a 9.6% unemployment rate; struggling with CBO deficit projection numbers that are off the charts for the next several years; suffering the fiscal effects of a gross misallocation of Stimulus bill funds that mostly went to expanding 73 existing government programs and adding 30 new ones for select constituencies; and procrastinating over a healthcare situation about which all agree something must be done, but which the majority refuses to consult the minority or produce a product.

And today, the majority is determined to perpetuate this craziness with a ``cooked'' appropriation process to temporarily fund the government because the House and Senate cannot get their respective acts together.

No wonder, we heard noisy demonstrations at town hall meetings and in Washington. Folks, the noise from outside the Washington Beltway is not just a response to the healthcare fiasco though that is certainly a part of it.

The noise is part of a steadily growing response to what people rightly perceive to be those running the government in Washington not paying attention to their concerns and fears about spending and the paths we are taking.

This continuing resolution exercise today is just one more example that the majority intends to keep ignoring those concerns.