[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 124 (Tuesday, July 31, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H9231-H9251]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 581 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3161.

                              {time}  1524


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 3161) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, 
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Becerra in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Kingston) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am pleased to present to the House for fiscal year 2008 the 
appropriations bill For Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and related agencies. I want to say ``thank you'' to 
Chairman David Obey for his dedication and leadership. It has been a 
very busy 7 months, and we have been fortunate to have Chairman Obey at 
the helm. A special ``thank you'' to my colleague, Congressman 
Kingston. It has been a pleasure to partner with him on this 
subcommittee, and I believe that we have accomplished a lot together. 
We are working to accomplish quite a lot today, with quite a wide-
ranging portfolio.
  This appropriation covers many subjects. Our top priority has always 
been to move with a clear purpose and direction towards several key 
goals: strengthening rural America, protecting public health, improving 
nutrition for more Americans, transforming our energy future, 
supporting conservation, investing in research, and, finally, enhancing 
oversight.
  It begins with our fiscal year 2008 mark providing total 
discretionary resources of $18.8 billion, $1 billion, or 5.7 percent, 
above 2007, and $987.4 million, or 5.5 percent, above the budget 
request. A full 95 percent of the increase above the budget request, or 
$940 million, is used to restore funding that was either eliminated or 
cut in the President's budget.
  Our first goal is strengthening rural America. Community development 
is a key link to rebuilding rural America, preserving infrastructure, 
building new opportunities, and confronting a tremendous gap when it 
comes to educational and medical resources. To help close that gap, the 
bill provides $52.8 million. That would double the broadband grant 
program which the President's budget request had eliminated. It 
provides $10 million more than the President requested for distance 
learning and telemedicine grants and includes $728.8 million to support 
community facilities, water and waste disposal systems, and business 
grants; $31.2 million for community facilities; $56.8 million for 
business and industry; and $70.3 million for waste and waste disposal 
programs.
  Clean water. Rural communities face tens of billions of dollars in 
costs for safe drinking water and wastewater treatment systems. To 
begin addressing these needs, the bill provides $500 million for rural 
water and waste disposal grants and $1 billion for water and waste 
direct loans.
  In housing, the community held a special hearing to discuss economic 
conditions in rural America with the USDA's Economic Research Service. 
A recent ERS report found that 302 of America's non-metro counties are 
``housing stressed.'' That is why we are making significant investments 
in rural housing, including $212.2 million to fund $5.1 billion in 
affordable loans to providing housing to low-income and moderate-income 
families in rural areas, providing approximately 38,000 single family 
home ownership opportunities.
  The President's budget eliminated direct loans and shifted funding to 
guaranteed loans with a 1 percent increase

[[Page H9232]]

in fees, making these loans more expensive and less accessible for low-
income families.
  Protecting public health was another of our priorities. The bill 
provides $1.7 billion for the Food and Drug Administration. That is 
$128.5 million over 2007 and $62 million over the budget request; in 
addition, $7 million in the manager's amendment in order for us to be 
able to inspect produce coming in from foreign countries.
  This is what the committee hopes will be the first step in the 
fundamental transformation and the regulation of food safety at FDA.

                              {time}  1530

  The committee directs the FDA to submit a plan to begin changing its 
approach to food safety when it submits the fiscal year 2009 budget, 
giving the committee time to review the plan before the funds to 
implement it become available on July 1, 2008.
  We can help with additional resources at FDA, but there also needs to 
be a corresponding commitment from management to perform its duties.
  When our pets began to die from contaminated pet food that originated 
in China, the news forced us to take a hard look at entire food safety 
systems abroad. Our renewed attention revealed inadequate protection 
and an increasingly global food supply system. The budget includes an 
additional $7 million, as I said, for FDA inspection of FDA imports. In 
addition, we address vacancies in Federal meat inspector positions. The 
bill fully funds the requested amount for the food safety and 
inspection service at $930 million.
  The bill also includes key language preventing the FDA from granting 
waivers of conflict of interest rules to voting members of the FDA 
advisory committee, and preventing USDA from establishing or 
implementing a rule allowing poultry products from China into the 
United States. The Chinese and others must be aware that trade cannot 
trump public health and that their regulations need to be strengthened 
to be considered an adequate trading partner.
  Another of our top priorities is improving nutrition. For many long 
years we have failed to meet our obligations, failed to act, while too 
many Americans have gone without adequate healthy food. One in eight 
families with a toddler, an infant, in the United States is ``food 
insecure''; that means that they are hungry. One in eight families with 
an infant.
  Forty percent of children in rural America are dependent upon food 
stamps. The progress we made on this issue with the farm bill last week 
represents real change, and this bill includes $39.8 billion for the 
Food Stamp program to meet increased participation and ensuring rising 
food prices do not diminish families' purchasing power.
  The bill also provides record funding for two fundamental food 
security programs which serve our country's most vulnerable population, 
the supplemental nutrition program for Women, Infants and Children, 
WIC, and the Commodities Supplemental Food Program, CSFP. These efforts 
go hand in hand with ongoing initiatives, including $957.7 million for 
nutrition programs to confront our Nation's obesity crisis, instilling 
better eating habits in our children, giving them the tools and the 
choices to avoid diabetes and other dangerous health conditions. That 
includes $68.5 million for the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education 
Program, $26 million to expand the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable and 
Simplified Summer Food Programs to all States, and $10 million for 
specialty crops. What are specialty crops? They are related to healthy 
diets in this Nation; fruits and vegetables that are farmed in my part 
of the country, in the mid-Atlantic States, in California, crops that 
are so crucial nationwide from New England to the west coast.
  Our work continues with other chief goals. Energy independence. This 
bill makes investments across the spectrum to grow our economy, create 
new jobs, lower energy prices and address global warming. It promotes 
renewable energy and moves us down the path to energy independence, 
strengthening bioenergy and renewable energy research funded at $1.2 
billion, including loans and grants in rural areas. The conservation 
and stewardship of our lands will affect our children for years to 
come.
  This bill restores many of the programs slated for elimination in the 
President's request, including the Grazing Lands Conservation 
Initiative, the Wildlife Habitat Program, and watershed rehabilitation, 
and provides $979.4 million to continue assistance to landowners for 
conservation efforts on private lands.
  We also have an obligation to maintain agriculture's critical place 
at the forefront of groundbreaking research, maintaining our edge in 
crop development, competitiveness, trade, nutrition, food safety and 
even homeland security.
  The bill increases funds for research and education through USDA's 
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service and the 
Agricultural Research Service.
  Finally, enhanced oversight. The committee is concerned about waste, 
fraud and abuse in key programs and has included language requested by 
the administration to allow the Risk Management Agency to use up $11.2 
million in mandatory crop insurance funds to strengthen its ability to 
oversee the program by maintaining and upgrading IT systems and other 
methods of detecting dubious claims.
  In closing, I think we should be excited about this bill, the goals 
that we set out to accomplish: strengthening rural America, protecting 
our public health, improving nutrition for more Americans, transforming 
our energy future, supporting conservation, investing in research, and 
finally, enhancing oversight.
  Most importantly, I believe it brings us back to our Nation's most 
fundamental principles; the strength of our communities. We have an 
obligation to get these things right. Let us assume that responsibility 
today, Mr. Chairman, and I'm pleased to submit this bill and I urge 
favorable consideration.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I want to, first of all, start off by complimenting the Chair of the 
committee. We have had a number of hearings this year. We've had a lot 
of great oversight opportunities. I look forward to more. We've 
thoroughly reviewed this bill, and there's many things that we found 
agreement on. There are some things that we're going to have debate on 
today and things that we'll continue to debate as the bill goes through 
the process, but I want to commend Ms. DeLauro for a bill well put 
together. Also, I want to thank her staff, Martha Foley, Leslie 
Barrack, Diem-Lihn Jones, Adrienne Simmonson, Kelly Wade and Brian 
Ronholm, and thank them for everything that they've done. And on our 
side, Martin Delgado, Dave Gibbons. You'll note, on the Democrat side, 
I pronounced the Republican side with equal ineptitude as I do the 
Democrats. Jamie Swafford, Meg Gilley, Merritt Myers, Emily Watson, 
Heather McNatt, Elizabeth Davis and Jason Lawrence and Scott Stevens. 
We have a lot of folks who've helped. One of my friends on the floor 
said, Well, how many people does this take? And I said, Well, you know 
this is almost a $100 billion bill, so we all have to get involved in 
it.
  I also wanted to say something about Ray LaHood. Mr. LaHood is a 
great committee member. He's going to be leaving Congress at the end of 
this term and made that announcement this week, and I thought I'd be 
remiss if we didn't say something about Mr. LaHood. He is a great 
appropriator. He's a guy who had early on worked with the Hershey 
Retreat to bring more bipartisan civility to the floor. He was 
instrumental when I was Chair of the Leg branch subcommittee of getting 
the staff gym started. Indeed, I don't know if we would have it without 
him and all of his hard work.
  And also, when we were in majority, he stood and sat where you are, 
Mr. Chairman, many times guiding this House through hot debates and 
emotional issues, and we're all going to miss Mr. LaHood.
  I want to start off on the bill a little bit because so many people 
think of agriculture as just farming. And yet, if we look at the 
breakdown of this bill and we see this large blue part, the actual 
money in this bill, the majority of it goes to domestic food assistance 
programs. And it's appropriate that it is in the ag bill because so 
much of what

[[Page H9233]]

we're talking about is national security, as seen through our food 
policy, but direct farming programs are in this more purplish area, and 
it's about 35 percent of the bill. We also have money for conservation, 
rural development for the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, and 
foreign food assistance. But I think it's important for people to 
realize that this is not just a bill that affects the rural areas.
  I also want to point out that much of this bill our committee doesn't 
have the control over that we would like to. In fact, if you look at 
this bill, we have an expression here in Washington called ``mandatory 
and discretionary spending.'' Discretionary spending is spending that 
Congress itself can effect on an appropriate bill. Mandatory spending 
is what authorizing committees do. This would have been done through 
the farm bill, for example.
  Now, I don't like the term ``mandatory.'' I think it should be called 
automatic spending, maybe even lazy spending, maybe even unchallenged 
spending, since we debate it once every 5 years and then lock it up in 
a farm bill. I think that the mandatory portion of this budget, since 
it is almost 80 percent of the budget, should be opened up and debated. 
I think there's a lot of things in there that need more scrutiny. 
Indeed, of the $18 billion in the discretionary spending area, we have 
been scrutinized and we've had a good look at it.
  I want to make a couple of points. Number one, the bill at its 
current level will be vetoed. We do not have a veto-proof majority. 
This bill will pass today, but not by a veto-proof. The President has 
made it clear that at a 5.9 percent increase over last year, he will 
veto it. I think it's important for us to realize this since this is a 
bipartisan body. This is not a veiled threat. The President has the 
votes to sustain the veto, and so that's what's going to happen. I 
think we would be better served getting together and bringing down the 
numbers on this bill.
  The second thing that I wanted to point out is there are a lot of 
issues that we're faced with in this House this week. One of them is 
the government health care program that's being pushed on the States 
and taking away a lot of their discretion. Another one is the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act. These bills are being pushed aside for 
this bill, and while I have a lot of passion for this bill, being an 
aggie myself, the reality is, this bill will leave the Chamber and it 
will sit over with the Senate. The Senate Appropriations Committee, for 
all intents and purposes, is defunct. We've been working hard. We've 
been working long in the House to pass our appropriation bills on time, 
and I commend Mr. Obey and the Democrat leadership to make sure that we 
get the bills over there.
  And yet, the reality is the Senate is going to sit on this bill, cram 
it into another bill, stuff it into a shoe box called an omnibus bill, 
and I think that's the wrong way to approach things. And at the same 
time, we're going to have other things that slide.
  Another thing I wanted to do is set the record straight on some of 
the nutrition programs, because we've had and heard from a number of 
people on the Rules Committee earlier today that this restores funding 
for important and critical child nutrition programs. And you would 
think that under Republican control, that the bill did not give any 
money for food and nutrition programs. And yet, if you look at this 
chart, Mr. Chairman, going back from 2001 on up to 2008, you can see 
there's simply a linear progression in nutrition funding that has taken 
place under Republicans mostly, and now under Democrats. But there's no 
huge dip. There's no great spike now that the Democrats are in charge. 
And it's important to set the record straight on that.
  In fact, I'm one, call me old fashioned, who doesn't think it's great 
to have lots and lots of people dependent on government programs. I 
think we should work to get people more independent, and I don't think 
that increasing these programs blindly makes sense. For example, the 
Commodity Supplemental Food Program, I don't follow the math on that. 
Last year the casework estimate was 490,000 people. The actual number 
to participate was 463,000. And yet this year, even though the 
projection's 464,000, the budget increase is $42 million for it, and I 
don't follow that logic at all. If the number of participants is going 
down, why is the spending going up? And the President actually had 
zeroed that out. Why did he do that? Does the President not care about 
hungry people? No, it's because they are eligible for food stamps. 
There's another program for them. Why have two bureaucracies doing 
basically the same thing, especially since you have electronic benefit 
transfer cards which are very simple to do, and those were some that 
this committee led in.
  The other thing that I wanted to point out on the subject of 
nutrition and hunger is it's interesting that we debated obesity a lot 
more than we have debated hunger. I think that's probably a good thing, 
but I think, on the other hand, it shows that there hasn't been this 
horrible hunger crisis under Republican rule.
  Another point I want to say about this bill, the farm service 
agencies, right now farm service agencies, there are 58 of them that 
have no staff. The Chair and I have agreed that these should be closed 
down. I think that's a step in the right direction; 139 of them have 
one employee and 338 have two employees and 515 have three employees.
  Now, I've heard it said about the VA that you can close down any 
veterans clinic you want in America as long as it's not located in a 
congressional district. Well, I guess the same is true with military 
bases, and it's true with FSA offices and other offices. We talk about 
wanting to balance the budget, but when it comes home to our own 
district, we all backpedal and say, no, we don't want anything closed.
  These decisions aren't easy, but we have to be leaders on this and 
not shirk our responsibility. I think this committee kind of worked 
through it, and I'm hoping that we're going to continue to work through 
it as the bill moves through the process.
  Renewable energy. There's so much right now in the rural areas from 
the subject of ethanol, biodiesel, cellulosic ethanol and other 
economies that we can go out and capitalize in and help bring 
alternative fuel to America.

                              {time}  1545

  In my home State of Georgia, there are about five or six ethanol 
plants. There are 121 of them nationally, but Georgia has on the 
drawing table right now to build another 80 ethanol plants just in our 
one State. That would put Georgia on the national leaders level. I am 
excited about that. Because if Georgia can do that, then certainly 
other States should be doing that; and I am glad that this bill puts a 
lot of investment into renewable energy.
  On broadband and distance learning, I think we all have a commitment 
to that. Two things that the Chair and I have agreed on that are very 
important is, one, we don't want the government programs to be 
competing with the private sector. If the private sector is already 
there, why put a government program out there? And, number two, for the 
retired stockbroker who has bought his mountain house on the top of the 
beautiful mountains in Colorado, why should we care if his laptop is 
hooked up or not? I don't think we have to waste taxpayer money so that 
he can check his stock quotes while he is in retirement.
  I also want to talk a little bit about a horse amendment that we 
have, some language in the bill that prohibits people who own horses 
from taking these horses across international lines. If you own a horse 
in America and this bill passes with the language that is in it, you 
will not be allowed to take that horse to Mexico or Canada for any 
purpose.
  Now, I understand that there are those who don't want horses to be 
slaughtered. Most of them are people who have never owned horses, who 
don't understand horse owners or who are intimidated by special 
interest groups in Washington. But the reality is sometimes you have to 
put a horse down, and since we have a problem with that in America, as 
outlawed by this Congress or the previous Congress, then this bill does 
give some flexibility to those people. But, in trying to close that 
loophole, what the committee did is they said now you can't take your 
horse out of the country and you can't bring one in. It is a ridiculous 
part of the language, and I am going to move to strike it.

[[Page H9234]]

  Another issue that I have some concerns about is drug reimportation. 
I think drug reimportation is a major policy shift, and I believe that 
we should have a vote on that.
  I commend the Chair in reducing the number of earmarks. The earmarks 
last year in the bill were about 4\1/2\ percent. We are starting out at 
about a 2 percent level. I think that is a great reduction not just in 
the dollar amount but in the number of earmarks.
  And one other area that I was disappointed in that I want to point 
out is risk-based inspection. This is where USDA inspectors go to food-
processing plants and, rather than dwell on all of them equally over 
time, they focus on the ones who are the bad actors, the ones who have 
the older equipment and the shoddy practices. They put more time there. 
It is a common business decision, and yet we are interfering with the 
USDA's right to do that. It is called ``risk-based inspection.'' I 
think it is very important to a good, clean, healthy food supply, and 
we have stopped RBI. I think that is a mistake.
  But, overall, there is a lot that's good in the bill. I look forward 
to the debate.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairwoman for yielding to me.
  I am the only Californian that sits on the Agriculture Appropriations 
Committee, and I am very proud that this bill is in partnership with 
the progressive new provisions that were adopted last week in the farm 
bill. This spends the money to implement those provisions. As the Chair 
just said, this bill takes us in a new direction, a direction that 
rural America can be really proud of.
  Many people know California as the most populous State and think of 
our large metropolitan areas. But few know that California is the 
number one ag-producing State in the United States. Every one of the 58 
counties in California produces agriculture, from the smallest county 
in San Francisco, which has nursery and flower stock, to the most 
populous county in California, Los Angeles County, with row crops and 
cattle ranches.
  The new leadership in Congress has taken us in a new direction. That 
direction is good news for rural America. That is good news for fresh 
foods, for fresh vegetables and fresh fruits to get into the diet. This 
bill takes us in a new direction for consumers. A new direction so that 
people have choices. A new direction for green technology to be used in 
the energy field. A new direction for conservation to be a part of good 
management practices.
  I applaud the committee's new Chair for taking us in a new direction 
and the opportunity for farming in America to be economically viable. 
This is good because it preserves open space and preserves the rural 
character, which is such a strength of this country.
  For California, this is good news. Our agriculture is like our 
technology. It's changing, always changing. It needs to be state-of-
the-art of technology, of research, of university work. We are the 
leaders in organic growing, from wines to artichokes. I am proud to 
represent the part of California that is called the ``Salad Bowl 
Capital of the World.'' The farmers who implement the best management 
practices in caring not only for their farm workers, and there is a big 
discussion on that in issues with immigration, but we have the largest 
farm worker force in the United States and they are now getting paid 
good wages. In fact, a lot of them have their own health care plans, 
which most Americans don't have, and they have 401(k)s for their 
families and scholarships for their children to go to school. This is a 
new attitude about farm workers.
  I want to thank Congresswoman DeLauro, the Chair of this committee, 
for taking America into a new direction, a more healthy direction.
  Let's reject the reckless amendments to this bill that undermine the 
positive gains made for America. This is a good appropriations bill. I 
applaud the Chair, Mr. Obey, for bringing it to the floor and to the 
members of the committee, and I urge all my colleagues to adopt this 
bill.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
  (Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, let me first begin by 
congratulating the hardest-working Member of the Congress, Chairwoman 
Rosa DeLauro, for this outstanding bill.
  Mr. Chairman, as a new member of the Appropriations Agriculture 
Subcommittee, I rise to voice my strong support for H.R. 3161, the 
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and 
Related Agencies appropriations bill. Again, I want to congratulate 
Chairwoman DeLauro and the subcommittee staff for the product here 
before us today. I also want to thank Ranking Member Kingston of the 
minority subcommittee staff for working with us to produce this 
product.
  Over the past 8 months, I have learned a lot about agriculture 
policy. When asked why I serve on this subcommittee, considering my 
largely urban and suburban district, I quickly respond by saying this 
bill touches the lives of 647,000 residents of the Second District of 
Illinois. We all eat, we all want safe food, and we all want safe 
medicines.
  With the recent passage of the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 
2007, our Nation's agriculture policy and spending reflects our growing 
investments not only in rural development and commodity programs but in 
nutrition, conservation, and renewable energy. We want to continue to 
support our farmers as well as feed the hungry, protect our Nation's 
food supply, and invest in research.
  One out of five Americans at some point in time in their lives will 
participate in at least one domestic food assistance program. Our 
nutrition programs serve as the first line of defense against combating 
hunger by helping low-income families purchase food. This bill 
illustrates Congress's commitment to protecting our country's most 
vulnerable populations. It accomplishes the following:
  It increases the Food Stamp Program by $1.7 billion and creates a $3 
billion contingency reserve, which helps feed over 26 million people 
annually. It restores the President's proposed cuts to the Commodity 
Supplemental Food Program and expands the program that serves over 
485,000 people monthly by adding five new States. It appropriates $5.6 
billion to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, 
Infants, and Children and restores State grants to help administer the 
program. It supports the expansion of the simplified summer school food 
program that provides up to two meals a day to children under the age 
of 18 during the summer.
  This bill also addresses a wide variety of needs, ranging from 
increased grants and loans for rural communities to fully funding the 
USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service.
  The increases in this bill are sensible, they are prudent, they 
reflect our priorities, reinforcing our commitment to feed the hungry, 
to house the needy, and to protect us all.
  I recommend that my colleagues vote against any amendments cutting 
these vital programs, and I strongly urge them to vote for this bill.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I think we kind of 
know where we are heading on various amendments. I look forward to that 
amendment.
  And, again, I have enjoyed working with you and the staff. You have a 
semi-good bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I, too, want to say thank you to my colleague, Mr. Kingston, in 
working with him; and it is not the first time we have had an 
opportunity to work together. We have been working together over the 
years.
  As I said, I am very proud of the bill and the goals that we set out 
and the direction that we set out to strengthen rural America and deal 
with our public health and nutrition, energy, conservation and looking 
at how we invest in our research.
  I look forward to the balance of our time and the amendment process, 
but I do, too, want to associate myself with

[[Page H9235]]

my colleague from Georgia's remarks about our colleague on the 
committee, Mr. LaHood, who has been an outstanding member of this 
committee but has been an outstanding Member of the House of 
Representatives, someone you could always count on to speak his mind 
but to be fair and to do his best for his constituents and for this 
Nation.
  I also want to say thank you to the many staffers who have worked 
hour after hour on this bill to make today possible. As a former staff 
member, I know that these efforts don't come together by some alchemy, 
but it is because of the incredible hard work that people put into it 
over many, many hours.
  And let me thank Martha Foley, subcommittee Clerk; as well as Leslie 
Barrack; Diem-Lihn Jones; Adrienne Simmonson; Kelly Wade; Brian 
Ronholm, my staff. Also, Ashley Turton, my Chief of Staff; and Leticia 
Mederos, Legislative Director. I also want to say thank you to Martin 
Delgado, Dave Gibbons, and Jamie Swafford on the minority staff. I 
thank everyone for their time and their patience in putting this effort 
together.
  I believe nothing could be more important for us to move forward on 
this bill and get it passed. I think it is in the best interest of this 
Nation.

[[Page H9236]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31JY07.048



[[Page H9237]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31JY07.049



[[Page H9238]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31JY07.050



[[Page H9239]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31JY07.051



[[Page H9240]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31JY07.052



[[Page H9241]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31JY07.053



[[Page H9242]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31JY07.054



[[Page H9243]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31JY07.055



[[Page H9244]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31JY07.056



[[Page H9245]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31JY07.057



[[Page H9246]]

  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to thank Chairman Peterson 
Chairman Baca, and members of the House Agriculture Committee for their 
continued commitment and interest in supporting our agriculture 
industry, producers--and specifically supporting modernization of the 
food stamp program, increasing access to fresh produce, particularly 
for low-income neighborhoods and working with the Congressional Black 
Caucus and urban Members to accommodate the needs of diverse 
communities.
  Throughout our Nation, we have a host of communities that are 
disconnected from accessing fresh fruits and vegetables. An increasing 
number of families are facing hunger and food insecurity: according to 
USDA's most recent data, more than 35 million Americans are unable to 
purchase food on a regular basis. Both sets of problems stem in part 
from the same cause: in urban as well as rural areas, too many low-
income families live in ``food deserts'' where access to fresh, healthy 
foods is lacking.
  I have worked with my fellow urban Members on a package of urban 
needs--ranging from making mandatory funds for the Community Food 
Project grant, increasing access to fresh fruits and produce, defining 
the term food desert, and creating a new Urban Health Enterprise grant 
program to strengthen links between producers to actual providers in 
urban communities.
  All but one of these amendments are included in the Manager's 
Amendment, and I thank the Chairman for working with us to ensure urban 
members have a stake in the farm bill.
  Mr. Chairman, although we still must find funding for the Community 
Food Projects grant; overall, the 2007 Farm Bill contains significant 
gains to promote access, expansion and education on nutrition.
  As you may know, with regard to nutrition, the bill modernizes the 
food stamp program by: 1. Requiring all states go to an electronic 
system; 2. Increasing the minimum food benefit of participants; 3. 
Indexing asset limits and excludes retirement and education accounts, 
and combat pay.
  The nutrition title extends and funds the Emergency Food Assistance 
Program to provide needed commodities to food banks and homeless 
shelters.
  And it expands the authority of the Senior Farmer's Market Nutrition 
Program and creates a demonstration project to evaluate strategies to 
address obesity among low-income communities.
  In conclusion Mr. Chairman, for far too many urban dwellers, the 
choice comes down to traveling long distances to buy groceries or 
shopping at expensive corner stores that often sell high-fat, high-
sugar convenience food and little or no fresh produce. The consequences 
are byproducts of poverty: diabetes, obesity, and heart disease.
  In the interests of public health, cost-efficiency, and social 
justice, we should consider policies to increase the availability of 
and access to fresh fruits and vegetables in underserved neighborhoods 
and communities.
  I call on my colleagues to support the Farm Bill, because of the 
gains in nutrition the committee has included in this bill.
  In addition to supporting farmers and our agriculture industry; this 
bill increases healthy food options in our poorest communities, creates 
incentives for producers and retailers to provide foods that provide 
healthy food options, and increasing consumer education about healthy 
alternatives at school and home.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend the Agriculture Sub-
committee Chairwoman, Ms. DeLauro, and the ranking Republican, Mr. 
Kingston. They have done a commendable job in putting this measure 
together in this first year in their respective positions.
  All along the way, Ms. DeLauro reached across the aisle to sound out 
the concern of the members on this side of the aisle--and the work 
product shows her bi-partisan efforts.
  While I do not agree with everything in the bill, I think it is a 
good product, all things considered. I especially want to thank the 
Chairwoman for her efforts to increase funding in the bill for the 
cooperative State research, education and extension service. The CSREES 
funding level was below the level where it should have been coming out 
of the subcommittee.
  After hearing the concerns of many members, Ms. DeLauro and Mr. 
Kingston closed ranks and fixed the problem. That funding gap was a 
particular issue to many members, especially those from rural, farming 
areas.
  I am pleased to note that the bill contains much in the way of 
agriculture research funding in a number of areas. This is important to 
many areas, particularly renewable fuels and food production science, 
to name two areas. The more we can make substantive progress in both of 
these areas, the better for the consumer and the farm community.
  I do want to point out a couple of areas where I think we can and 
should improve on the bill. First, there is a provision, section 746, 
which currently reads, ``no funds in this act may be used to authorize 
qualified health claims for conventional foods''.
  I understand that there will be an amendment later on that stipulates 
no funds for FDA will be used for this purpose. However, this amendment 
does not address the problem.
  If this provision, or a similar one, is intended to help FDA avoid 
wasted time and resources on frivolous petitions, it misses the mark. 
Nothing in the language removes FDA's responsibility to review these 
petitions, as required by law. The provision only denies final 
approval, or ``authorization'' of the use of valid claims.
  This is bad health policy, and it is bad fiscal policy, and I urge 
the chairwoman to relook at the provision in conference, lest its 
impact come back to haunt us.
  On another issue, the horse slaughter language, the provision, as 
written, is opposed by animal experts across the country--real experts, 
including veterinarians and others. The way the language is written, it 
precludes health inspections and certifications for the legal transport 
of horses, for example.
  Finally, I think, like some others on both sides of the aisle, that 
we have short-changed some necessary program areas, on occasion, in the 
past.
  But I also think that, as with some other bills, we are going a 
little far in adding extra spending. Too much spending can do as much 
damage as too little spending.
  It is important to remember that when we give agencies too much 
money, they spend more than they need to spend simply to hold their 
annual baseline intact. this is not a heal thy way to manage the 
Nation's resources.
  We have some discretion here, and we should use that discretion 
since, apparently, we have turned a blind eye to the serious and 
growing problem of out-of-control entitlements.
  In summary, let me, again, commend the gentlewoman from Connecticut. 
I think you have done a fine job, and I look forward to continuing to 
work with you to improve this bill as we go forward.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to rise in 
strong support of the H.R. 3161, the Agriculture, Rural Development, 
Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies appropriations bill 
for fiscal year 2008.
  As a member of this Subcommittee, I am extremely proud of the work of 
the Subcommittee and our members on both sides of the aisle, in 
crafting a bill which truly impacts and touches the lives of everyone 
who lives in this great Nation of ours, as well as millions of 
individuals around the world.
  Our bill invests in Rural America, providing funding to accommodate 
some $5.1 billion in affordable loans for low income families in rural 
areas, which will support approximately 38,000 single family 
homeownership opportunities.
  We invest in rural communities, by expanding resources devoted to 
economic development programs and access to broadband telecommunication 
services to bridge the digital divide in rural, underserved areas.
  We address the health care and emergency needs of rural areas, as 
well as providing support for the rebuilding of our Nation's rural 
infrastructure.
  We invest in the protection of the Nation's Public Health, by 
providing nearly $930 million for the Food Safety and Inspection 
Service as well as $1.7 billion for the Food and Drug Administration--
including increases to begin a transformation of food safety 
regulation, improving drug safety, monitor prescription drug 
advertisements and expanding the review of new generic drug 
applications.
  To fight hunger in America, our bill makes investments which will 
expand nutrition, providing $958 million for nutrition programs, 
including the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program, Fresh 
Fruit and Vegetable program and the Simplified Summer Food program.
  We provide $5.6 billion for the Special Supplemental Nutrition 
Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), which is expected to 
benefit over 8.4 million Americans over the next year.
  Not only does this bill provide the resources necessary to keep 
nearly 26 million of the nation's poorest from going hungry, we also 
expand Emergency Food Assistance Program, so that food banks, soup 
kitchens, and other emergency feeding sites have needed resources. The 
bill also expands the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Snack Program to all 50 
states.
  We invest in the transformation of our Energy Future, providing $1.2 
billion for renewable energy, which was $955.3 million above 2007 and 
$810.4 million above the President's request--and includes funding for 
bio-energy and renewable energy research and development, including 
loans and grants in rural areas. The resources provided will be key 
building blocks in the expansion of renewable fuel production needed to 
encourage American energy independence and protect our environment.

[[Page H9247]]

  We invest in Conservation, providing over $979 million for 
conservation efforts and community development. This bill restores many 
of the programs slated for major reductions in the president's request, 
including the Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative, Resource 
Conservation and Development, and the watershed programs which are 
funded $75 million--more than double last year's levels.
  This investment will continue our efforts to improve both funding and 
access to conservation programs that take environmentally sensitive 
land out of farming and encourage environmentally friendly practices on 
working farmland.
  Finally, I would like to congratulate my Chairwoman, Rosa DeLauro, 
for the outstanding job she's done in stewarding and leading the 
important work of our Subcommitee.
  And I would be remiss if I did not recognize and thank the staff of 
Subcommittee--Martha Foley, Leslie Barrack, Adrienne Simonson, Diem-
Linh Joan and Kelly Wade of the Majority staff; and Martin Delgado, 
Jamie Swafford and Dave Gibbons on the Minority staff, and of course, 
Michael Reed, and Niki Newberry of my staff.
  This is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to support the FY08 
Agriculture Appropriations bill.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, in accordance with House earmark reforms, 
I would like to place into the record a listing of Congressionally-
directed projects in my home state of Idaho that are contained within 
the report to the FY08 Agriculture, Rural Development and FDA 
Appropriations bill.
  I'd like to take just a few minutes to describe why I supported these 
projects and why they are valuable to the nation and its taxpayers.
  First, the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 
Service (CSREES) grants included below are targeted to our nation's 
Land Grant Colleges. In the case of Idaho, these funds are used by the 
University of Idaho to conduct research on a variety of crops important 
to the Pacific Northwest. I have also supported research in Washington 
and Oregon because their research is invaluable to my constituents as 
well.
  In assessing the value of these requests, there are some important 
considerations that must be made. World labor standards and costs are 
far below those of the U.S. Our nation's farmers are subjected to far 
more stringent environmental regulations than those of many of our 
competitors. Input costs in the U.S. far surpass those of other 
nations. And energy prices, including farm diesel, are rising 
dramatically.
  So how can a U.S. farmer remain competitive in a global market? He 
can do it by achieving greater productivity and efficiency, increased 
yields, and better defenses against diseases. These are the very things 
that agriculture research funding delivers for U.S. producers--and for 
U.S. consumers.
  If you want to rely on foreign nations for our food in the way we 
rely on them for our oil, then by all means eliminate these important 
agriculture research programs. But if you believe, as I do, that 
maintaining a domestic capability to produce our food is a national 
security issue, then you ought to support these research programs and 
fight for their continuation.
  The second entity that receives the bulk of these funds is the 
Agriculture Research Service (ARS) and its stations across rural 
America. In Idaho, these institutions are conducting vital research 
into some of our most important crops--sugar, potatoes, small fruits, 
and aquaculture. I encourage all of my colleagues to visit an ARS 
station to see firsthand the value of this research. If you do, you 
will learn that these researchers are doing amazing things with very 
limited budgets. These projects are usually small in terms of their 
funding, but the benefits that flow from that research cannot be 
measured in dollars alone.
  Four of the projects below are funded through the Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Service (APHIS). The first program, Potato Cyst 
Nematode (PCN) Detection and Eradication, provides funding that is 
critical to saving the potato industry, both in Idaho and across the 
nation. In August 2006, PCN was discovered in our country for the first 
time on approximately 1,000 acres in Eastern Idaho. PCN is a major pest 
of potato crops and is one of the most destructive and difficult pests 
to control. If left uncontrolled, this pest can result in devastating 
crop yield losses of up to 80 percent. Without this funding, the pest's 
significant risk of dispersion could lead to a devastating impact on 
our nation's agriculture production and exports.
  The Greater Yellowstone Brucellosis funding is particularly critical 
to my home state of Idaho. Idaho recently regained its Brucellosis 
Class Free Status and these funds are critical to continuing a 
management plan that will allow Idaho to maintain brucellosis free 
status.
  The Tri-State Predator control funding is hardly a handout to 
ranchers. The federal government forced wolf reintroduction on Idaho 
and other western states and it is duty-bound to pay for the deadly and 
gruesome impacts of this decision.
  The funding for the Nez Perce Bio-Control Center will enable the 
Center to utilize organism-rearing technology to improve mass rearing 
capabilities for biological control organisms, thus providing long-term 
management of invasive weeds.
  Another project on this list is the Idaho One-Plan. The Idaho One-
Plan is a unique collaboration of agencies, industries, and 
associations dedicated to assisting Idaho farmers and ranchers in their 
continuing natural resource stewardship responsibilities. The program 
was developed jointly with state and federal resource agencies, the 
University of Idaho Cooperative Extension program, the Environmental 
Protection Agency, and local commodity groups. It's a successful 
program that has enormous value to not only the Idaho agriculture 
community and the environment, but to other states that might be 
interested in a similar collaborative process.
  The final project is the Idaho Food Bank Facility Acquisition and 
Expansion Program. Currently, the Idaho Food Bank, located in 
Pocatello, Idaho, cannot process all of the donated food and often 
turns away delivery trucks and donations due to lack of space. An 
expansion of the food bank would allow more needy families in Eastern 
Idaho to utilize the food bank's services.
  Mr. Chairman, any effort to remove these projects from the bill would 
not only result in zero savings to taxpayers, it would stop dead these 
important efforts to enhance and protect our nation's food supply.
  I appreciate the opportunity to provide a list of Congressionally-
directed projects in my region and an explanation of my support for 
them.
  (1) $6,750,000 for APHIS Potato Cyst Nematode Detection and 
Eradication.
  (2) $854,000 for CSREES Increasing Shelf Life of Agricultural 
Commodities (WA, OR, ID).
  (3) $96,994 for ARS National Plant Germplasm Program--Aberdeen, ID.
  (4) $628,843 for ARS Aquaculture--Barley Sustainable Feeds--Aberdeen, 
ID.
  (5) $1,093,728 for ARS Aquaculture Rainbow Trout Research--Aberdeen, 
ID.
  (6) $99,000 for ARS Aquaculture Sustainable Feeds--Aberdeen, ID.
  (7) $756,000 for CSREES Aquaculture (WA, ID).
  (8) $728,000 for CSREES Barley for Rural Development (MT, ID).
  (9) $900,000 for APHIS Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis 
Committee.
  (10) $198,000 for NRCS Idaho One-Plan
  (11) $250,000 for APHIS Nez Perce Bio-Control Center.
  (12) $1,300,000 for APHIS Tri-State Predator Control in Montana, 
Idaho, and Wyoming.
  (13) $558,000 for CSREES Cool Season Legume Research (ID, WA, ND).
  (14) $446,000 for CSREES Grass Seed Cropping for Sustainable 
Agriculture Research (WA, OR, ID).
  (15) 439,000 for CSREES Small Fruit Research (OR, WA, ID).
  (16) $702,592 for ARS Sugarbeet Research--Kimberly, ID.
  (17) $634,000 for CSREES STEEP III Water Quality in the Northwest.
  (18) $6,371,000 for CSREES Wood Utilization (OR, MS, NC, MN, ME, MI, 
ID, TN, AK, WV).
  (19) $1,482,000 for CSREES Potato Research.
  (20) Idaho Food Bank Facility Acquisition and Expansion Program.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend Chairwoman DeLauro for her 
excellent work on this bill and to address a specific issue that is of 
growing importance to my constituents.
  This March, the light brown apple moth (LBAM), an exotic pest native 
to Australia, was discovered in California. The moth has been damaging 
to growers in Santa Cruz, Santa Clara, and San Mateo Counties in my 
district. In Santa Cruz County, nearly 6,000 moths have now been 
detected.
  This pest can affect a wide variety of plants, flowers, fruits and 
vegetables, and virtually any crop with a leaf is a potential host.
  In order to halt the spread of this pest, USDA has imposed a 
quarantine in California counties where the moth has been found. 
Growers in these counties must subject their operations to a visual 
inspection to demonstrate that their facilities are not infested before 
they can be cleared to ship produce. For growers within 1.5 miles of a 
confirmed discovery of the moth, each shipment must be cleared by an 
inspection.
  Canada and Mexico have also placed restrictions on the import of 
California products.
  The quarantine and restrictions are a burden on growers in my 
district as well as on State and county agriculture officials, but it 
is a burden they recognize is necessary to prevent the further spread 
of the light brown apple moth.

[[Page H9248]]

  What is critical is adequate Federal support and funding for the 
eradication and inspection effort. The USDA provided $5 million for 
this effort at the outset and they are seeking an additional $12.5 
million through the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). The request has 
been pending with OMB for several weeks now and it needs to be 
approved.
  Even if the funding is released, it may only carry operations through 
the end of the year. In the coming years, it may take several million 
dollars more to ensure the job is complete.
  This was a relatively late breaking issue to be addressed in this 
appropriations bill, and I commend Chairwoman DeLauro for recognizing 
how serious it is and for including report language that calls on the 
USDA to secure all funds needed from the Commodity Credit Corporation 
to eradicate the light brown apple moth. In the Senate, $1 million is 
included within the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 
specifically for this purpose.
  As we move forward with this bill and subsequent legislation to deal 
with agriculture disasters, I look forward to working with the 
Chairwoman and my colleague, Mr. Farr, to build on what is already in 
the House and Senate bills in order to ensure that sufficient funding 
is provided and that it is made available in a timely fashion.
  Ms. DeLauro. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an 
amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the 
Congressional Record designated for that purpose. Those amendments will 
be considered read.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3161

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2008, and for other purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                         AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

                  Production, Processing and Marketing

                        Office of the Secretary

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, $5,505,000: Provided, That not to exceed $11,000 
     of this amount shall be available for official reception and 
     representation expenses, not otherwise provided for, as 
     determined by the Secretary.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I start a period of time in which we're 
going to take opportunity to talk about SCHIP.
  I strike the last word to speak about the expansion legislation that 
was pulled from the Energy and Commerce Committee. Reportedly, it will 
be on the floor later this week, and I would like to highlight the 
damage it will do, if enacted. Specifically, I'd like to take this 
opportunity to speak about the very popular Medicare Advantage program.
  In Illinois, there are 1,715,548 Medicare beneficiaries. Of these, 
145,600, or 8 percent, have selected to receive their health care 
coverage through a Medicare Advantage plan. According to the Centers 
for Medicare and Medicaid Services, there are over 6,000 Medicare 
beneficiaries in my district that are currently enrolled in a Medicare 
Advantage program.
  One of the most troubling things I have heard about the Democrats' 
bill is actually from Peter Orzag, who is the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office. The Director said that under the 
Democrats' bill, Medicare Advantage enrollment would fall by 
approximately 8.2 million currently to 5.5 million in 2012, a reduction 
of 33 percent from current enrollment levels.
  Medicare beneficiaries are among this Nation's most vulnerable 
citizens, and access to comprehensive high-quality affordable health 
care is imperative to their well-being. As we well know, the population 
of the United States over age 65 is growing rapidly. The average 
Medicare beneficiary is likely to have two or more chronic illnesses. 
Medicare beneficiaries should have choices for their health care 
coverage similar to those available to individuals under age 65. We 
should allow them to choose plans that best meet their unique health 
care needs and to help them coordinate their care, manage their 
illnesses, and reduce their out-of-pocket costs.
  On average, beneficiaries that choose a Medicare Advantage plan in 
Illinois are receiving over $60 in extra value each month from their 
plans. This extra value comes in the form of savings on cost sharing 
and out-of-pocket protections and on lower part D premiums, or 
additional benefits like coverage for vision and hearing. Beneficiaries 
in Medicare Advantage plans report better access to care, more usual 
sources of care, and more likelihood of seeking care when needed than 
beneficiaries in traditional fee-for-service operations.
  CMS has recently reported that beneficiaries in fee-for-service with 
no additional sources of coverage have more difficulty getting care and 
are less likely to have usual source of care than Medicare Advantage 
enrollees.
  All Medicare beneficiaries have access to a Medicare Advantage plan 
that does not require cost sharing for screenings for breast cancer, 
cervical cancer and prostate cancer. Recently, CMS has reported that 
Medicare Advantage enrollees are more likely to receive preventative 
services, such as immunizations, mammography, and screenings for 
colorectal and prostate cancers.
  Critics have implied that the Medicare Advantage program is 
contributing to the solvency problems facing the Medicare trust fund. 
However, these critics fail to recognize the extra value that Medicare 
Advantage plans provide that address the real drivers in increasing 
program costs. Medicare Advantage plans help control the volume and 
intensity of services used by beneficiaries in Medicare part A and part 
D by coordinating care, improving health outcomes, and monitoring 
enrollee usage.
  Medicare Advantage generates savings in the part D program by helping 
to drive down the average premium paid by the government and 
beneficiaries, and by reducing Federal expenditures for beneficiaries 
eligible for low-income subsidies.
  Critics have further distorted the facts by offering information that 
claims to suggest a ``fairness gap'' between Medicare Advantage 
payments and the other providers. In fact, Medicare Advantage payment 
rates increase in direct proportion to the Federal Government's 
estimates of increases in per capita costs in the fee-for-service 
program.
  Some critics suggest that legislators must choose between providing 
comprehensive health coverage options to Illinois seniors through the 
Medicare Advantage program or providing coverage to Illinois uninsured 
children through SCHIP. Both programs play a crucial role in serving 
vulnerable populations. We should focus on devoting adequate resources 
to both SCHIP and Medicare Advantage, while working to maintain and 
strengthen all components of our Nation's health care safety net.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Gingrey

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Gingrey:
       Page 2, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $50,050)''.

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment reduces the necessary 
expenses of the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture by $50,050, a 
simple 1 percent; a 1 percent reduction in the expenses of the Office 
of the Secretary of Agriculture.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment is not aimed necessarily at the Office of 
the Secretary of Agriculture, but it aims to make a simple 1 percent 
reduction in order to shrink the Federal deficit. Why is that 
necessary? Well, we should be paying for increased spending by reducing 
other Federal spending, that's the 1 percent I'm calling for, rather 
than raising taxes or putting the burden on our Medicare seniors, as we 
do

[[Page H9249]]

in this proposed SCHIP reauthorization and expansion, Mr. Chairman.
  And as we all know, the Democratic majority, the Energy and Commerce 
Committee bill, which will be combined with the bill out of the Ways 
and Means Committee we will be dealing with in the next day or two on 
this floor, calls for a $50 billion increase over the next 5 years. 
Now, that's on top of the base program which, in the aggregate, was a 
$25 billion program over the last 5 years. We're not going to increase 
that by 10 percent, by 20 percent, by 50 percent, or even by 100 
percent. We're increasing it even more than that, going from $25 
billion, Mr. Chairman, to $75 billion.
  So, that's why I'm standing before the body today and saying, look, 
this is a small cut; this is a little bit of money. But a little bit of 
money here and a little bit of money there, I've got lots of amendments 
where we ought to cut other programs here 1 percent to try to pay for 
some of these things that we are doing that violate your own rules, 
your own PAYGO rules.
  Mr. Chairman, I will say this; this new SCHIP program, everything's 
got to have an acronym, doesn't it? And it sells well if it has a 
catchy little acronym. And the Democratic majority is calling this one, 
the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee came up with a nice, 
little cutesy acronym for this mass expansion called the CHAMP Act, 
Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I've got an acronym for this bill which fits it a lot 
better, and that acronym is the ``CHUMP Act.'' That's what it is, the 
CHUMP Act, the Children's Health Unfunding Medicare Protection Act. 
Because, Mr. Chairman, what this bill calls for is to totally wreck, 
totally destroy Medicare Advantage. Medicare Advantage is that part of 
the Medicare program where some 8 million out of 41, 42 million seniors 
have chosen that health care delivery model because they know they get 
an opportunity for preventative health care, they get an opportunity to 
have a nurse practitioner, a physician assistant, or maybe even the 
doctor him- or herself looking at their health care needs and not just 
providing, as in traditional Medicare, episodic care where there is no 
coordination. And a lot of times patients, particularly our seniors 
with multiple systems diseases, will come home from one doctor with a 
handful of prescriptions and the next week they're going to another 
doctor with a handful of prescriptions.
  The Medicare Advantage program was designed to help prevent that, to 
put an emphasis on coordination, on connecting the dots so that we 
wouldn't duplicate services, or in some instances, Mr. Chairman, even 
provide a level of care or prescription that could be detrimental to 
the patient, that could be counterproductive.
  So, this is why I feel that my amendment, this small amendment to cut 
by 1 percent the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture, is a move in 
the right direction to say, look, don't do this massive expansion of 
the SCHIP program; reauthorize it. We all want to reauthorize it. In 
fact, I think maybe what the President called for in his budget was a 
little bit on the low side. Maybe increasing it $1 billion a year is 
not quite enough, if indeed, Mr. Chairman, there are 6 million 
youngsters who are needy and do not have health insurance in this 
country.
  So, I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I think my colleague from Georgia maybe doesn't 
understand what bill is on the floor today. This is the Agriculture 
appropriations bill. There will be an opportunity to discuss SCHIP, and 
you can continue to do that, but let me just comment about your 
Agriculture appropriations amendment.
  The House bill includes funding for central administration offices to 
fund current staff. The only increase is for pay costs. And I might 
just tell you that for all of the staff offices in central 
administration, that the work that was done by the committee literally 
cut these offices by about 16 percent. So it was just pay and benefits.
  However, you should know I feel the obligation to mention these 
things to you, that any cuts in these offices will result in the 
reduction of headquarters staff, not the field staff, because that's 
the personnel that deals directly on a one-to-one basis with our 
farmers and with our ranchers so that they can access the system and be 
able to do what they need to do.
  Now, I'm going to give the gentleman an opportunity to withdraw his 
amendment, because I am prepared to accept your amendment, and I'm 
happy to accept your amendment.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. KINGSTON. If the Chair seeks to accept the amendment, then that 
ends the debate; correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will put the question on the amendment at the 
conclusion of the debate on the amendment.
  Mr. KINGSTON. The debate is over then; correct?
  Ms. DeLAURO. We have accepted the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I am happy that the Chair is accepting 
this amendment, but I would like to speak on it as an opportunity to 
speak about cutting government spending.
  Though it's just $50,500, that's far more than the median income in 
my district. I want the American taxpayers to know that this is an 
important step, and it's good that they're accepting a limitation on 
the rapid increase in spending within this legislation.
  There are a lot of good points that we have to consider here. We have 
to consider the totality of government spending when we're debating 
here on the House floor. The government spending for this fiscal year 
is over $2.7 trillion. To put that into perspective, Mr. Chairman, that 
is larger than all the economies of the world, except for two. It is 
far larger than even the Chinese economy, which is about $1.9 trillion.
  The reason why I bring this up is that when we're discussing each of 
these appropriations bills, we tend to focus on small parts of the 
appropriations process. We tend to focus on an amendment here, an 
amendment there, maybe increasing funding here and there and increasing 
funding in a particular appropriations bill. But we have to talk about 
what's that doing to the whole of the budget. And if we spend money 
here in the Department of Agriculture, we may not have that money to 
fund this SCHIP proposal that the Democrats are bringing to the floor 
at the end of this week.
  Now, to talk about that bill, what they're going to do is not simply 
cut government spending elsewhere in the budget, elsewhere in the 
government, reforming programs, eliminating programs that are 
ineffective and no longer cost-effective for the American taxpayers, 
but what they do is they go out and find new revenue and raise taxes 
under this SCHIP proposal.
  The Agriculture bill we have here today increases government 
spending, thereby forcing this new Democrat majority to go out and 
raise taxes for their new programs. And, Mr. Chairman, they've proposed 
a lot of new programs, this new Democrat majority, and what we have to 
do is focus on making sure we balance the budget. Now, balancing the 
budget, to me, as a fiscal conservative, does not mean going out and 
getting new revenue.

                              {time}  1615

  It means doing things, sensible things, such as the Congressman from 
Georgia, Mr. Gingrey, my good friend and colleague, is doing here. It 
cuts 1 percent out of the administrative budget of the Department of 
Agriculture, just 1 percent.
  I have an amendment that I would like to perfect. If 1 percent was 
acceptable to the Chair, I would like to see if maybe 2 percent would 
be acceptable and see where we can actually draw the line in cutting 
government spending, where the breaking point is in this House of 
Representatives. To that end, I think it is important that we have a 
discussion on what that proper number is.

[[Page H9250]]

  I know my colleague from Georgia may have another amendment similar 
to this next up, I hope, at which point I would like to see if we can 
actually go a little bit further in cutting government spending. Let's 
talk about not just the Agriculture appropriations bill, which is the 
key focus of today, but also the long-term consequences of our just 
having a narrow, myopic focus on the current bill on the floor. Let's 
talk about the totality of government spending, ways that we can reform 
the government, limit the government, and actually get back to what is 
sensible.
  We have a big debate going on right now about the war in Iraq. We 
have a big debate going on about children's health care. We have a big 
debate about whether or not the farm bill that we passed last week was 
the right thing to do and whether or not you should actually have a 
massive tax increase in order to implement the new programs within that 
formula. Many of us agree that that wasn't the right thing to do, but, 
unfortunately, the majority in the House did vote for that massive tax 
increase.
  It is important that we have a discussion on health care and 
agriculture and the long-term consequences of these issues going 
forward. Certainly, the bill today and the chairman's willingness to 
accept a 1 percent cut in the administrative budget is a step in the 
right direction. We can be thankful for that.
  I hope, as we go on in the debate, the Chair will be willing to 
accept other amendments that limit the rapid increase of funds going to 
the Department of Agriculture and we can actually rightsize the 
government. There are many on this side of the aisle who want to cut 
the size and scope of government. I know that the chairwoman has been 
willing to examine programs and reform those programs. I hope that she 
will be willing to accept many of the amendments we have here today.
  I also know my colleague from Georgia has a number of amendments like 
this. It is important that we discuss the long-term consequences of our 
failure to limit the growth of government.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for Members on both 
sides of the aisle to understand what is going to transpire here. This 
is a filibuster masquerading as an amendment. This amendment cuts 
$50,000, a tiny, tiny symbolic sum, from the administrative account in 
question. But, as I see it, this is not a real amendment.
  What it means is that it simply affords those who offer it, under the 
guise of talking about spending, to really engage in delay and delay 
and delay. Because their goal, if they can, is to not have the House 
finish its appropriations business. Their goal, also, if they can, is 
to delay the SCHIP bill from coming to the floor and finally being 
passed by the House.
  So after we have seen this administration and their allies in this 
House borrow $1.2 trillion to pay for tax cuts and after we have seen 
them borrow another $600 billion to finance that misbegotten war in 
Iraq, now they pretend that they are contributing to the public good by 
offering to cut spending by $50,000; not $50 billion, but $50,000.
  This is, in plain language, a filibuster. It is the first of many 
amendments that are being offered by people who are so opposed to the 
SCHIP proposition, which will be before us tomorrow, that they would 
prefer to defend $50 billion in tax cuts for people making $1 million a 
year than they would to see 5 million more kids covered by health 
insurance in this country. That is really what is afoot here.
  Mr. Chairman, I find myself only mildly amused, because the subject 
really is serious. I find myself only mildly amused by the fact that, 3 
days ago, we had the President announce another large, massive increase 
in foreign aid which he wants us to provide yet this year.
  We also now increasingly are coming to understand that the President 
will be asking for an extension of the surge in Iraq, which will 
require him to ask the Congress to spend an extra $25 billion to $30 
billion above and beyond $140 billion he is planning to ask for in the 
supplemental already for this year for Iraq. So, yet, we are here mired 
today in this let's-pretend Potemkin debate over $50,000.
  We don't, on this side of the aisle, intend to get bogged down; at 
least, we don't intend to contribute to the bogging down. So we will 
let them drone on, drone on and drone on with their Lilliputian 
amendments.
  Meanwhile, we recognize what is happening: If the other side wants to 
delay the people's business for a while, all that means is that, in the 
end, our colleagues won't be going home on Friday, they won't be going 
home on Saturday, and we will still be having Sunday dinner together.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Tennessee is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the chairman, and I thank the gentleman from 
Georgia for his legislation to make a 1 percent reduction. We have got 
to start taking these first steps.
  Year after year, I feel there is a group of us that come down here 
talking about how we slow the growth of government, talking about how 
we make reductions in what the government spends and talking about the 
necessity to begin with those little, tiny savings, \1/4\ percent, \1/
2\ percent, a solid percent, that will yield a savings. We are talking 
about $5.5 million. I find it just amazing that we can't even find 
$50,000 in there. We can't agree to make that kind of reduction. There 
are ways to do this. That is something government should be doing.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin mentioned the SCHIP program. Indeed, in 
our Committee on Energy and Commerce, we have been quite disheartened 
that the SCHIP bill that he mentioned is not going through regular 
order. We didn't have a committee hearing in our Health Subcommittee. 
We would have welcomed that.
  There is nobody against health care for low-income children. What we 
have great concerns about is all the other stuff, all the pay-fors that 
are in this bill, all the expansion of policy, taking a block grant, 
moving it to an entitlement. It brings us back to the initial question 
with the gentleman's bill on this appropriations bill of making a 1 
percent reduction. There has to be a way to yield a savings that will 
pay for some of these things, because we can't take it out of Medicare 
Advantage.
  The SCHIP legislation that the gentleman mentioned would make an 
incredible reduction to Medicare Advantage. My goodness, we would see 
$193 billion in reductions to our Medicare Advantage program over a 10-
year period of time, which would be $15.3 billion in cuts to Medicare 
Part A for seniors. This would include skilled nursing facilities, 
rehab facilities, and long-term care hospitals. That would be one of 
the pay-fors in the SCHIP bill that the gentleman referenced.
  That is why the gentleman from Georgia has a great amendment that 
says, let's get going. In title 1, page 1 of this bill, let's start 
finding a way to make some reductions. $9.6 billion in cuts to Medicare 
Part D for seniors is in that bill, that SCHIP bill that didn't go 
through subcommittee, didn't get a complete markup in committee. It is 
going to be moved to the floor.
  So, there, again, the gentleman from Wisconsin's points on this bill 
is the reason we have this amendment to title 1, section 1 of this 
bill, to make that reduction in the Secretary's spending, $5.5 million. 
Certainly, we can find $50,000. $3.6 billion would be cut out of end-
stage renal disease in that bill. There has to be a way to start making 
reductions so that you're paying for the government that you are trying 
to spend, the money you are trying to spend, the government you are 
putting out there. There has got to be a way to pay for this. 
Unfortunately, that is not something that we are seeing considered.
  Mr. Chairman, $50,000 may not be much to the Secretary, but it is a 
lot to my constituents in Tennessee and especially those that are on 
Medicare Advantage.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I want to be clear. The 
gentlewoman may not be aware of it, but we

[[Page H9251]]

have accepted this amendment. The majority has accepted Mr. Gingrey's 
first amendment for $50,000. The gentlewoman said that $50,000 is very 
important to her constituents. The majority has heard it. Therefore, we 
accept the amendment. I think we can dispose of this amendment and move 
forward.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. 
DeLauro), the chairwoman of the subcommittee.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I would just say we have accepted the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, clearly, as the Chair of the committee pointed out, 
this is a filibuster to talk about another issue. Now, you can continue 
to do that. The sooner you stop filibustering, the sooner we can move 
on. We have accepted the amendment. But that is up to you.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time.
  The gentlewoman's constituents should be very proud that we have 
accepted the amendment. The $50,000 that is so important to her 
constituents, to all Americans, has been accepted. We can dispose of 
this and move forward.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairwoman for 
accepting the amendment. It is a commonsense way to begin this process 
that lacks a lot of common sense.
  I wish to commend my colleague from Georgia for beginning the process 
of fiscal responsibility on this next appropriations bill. I would 
point out, however, that this bill spends $1.04 billion more than last 
year, an increase of 5.9 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that there aren't many folks across 
this Nation who got a 5.9 percent increase in their budget this year. 
So, I think that the amendment of my colleague from Georgia is an 
appropriate effort to try to begin the process of fiscal 
responsibility.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand here supporting this amendment because as we 
attempt, and thank goodness we have the support of the majority on this 
small attempt, to begin to decrease bureaucracy, we are faced with a 
significant and huge increase in bureaucracy coming later this week.
  I say that because my friend, the chairman of the committee, says, 
well, our goal here is to not finish the business. No, Mr. Chairman, 
our goal is to bring focus to an issue and to a bill that will not be 
allowed to get the focus that this bill gets. Because, as you know, Mr. 
Chairman, the rules of the House that will bring bills to the floor 
later this week will be of such a nature that Members of the House 
won't be able to come to the floor and talk about it. They won't be 
able to come to the floor and offer amendments in an open and 
deliberative process. They won't be able to exercise the right that 
they felt, and certainly their constituents felt, they would be given 
by being elected to this august body.